1 


^ 

^ 

Q. 

' 

•■^? 

1 

'c' 

^ 

IE 

« 

;       1 

•^-* 

. 

7^ 

•-3 

-C 

•S 

a. 

S5 

^ 

0 

- 

Ci 

^ 

^ 

0 

1 

O) 

c 

^»^ 

•< 

, 

^ 

0) 

^ 

0 

0 

3 
E 

CO 

^       1 

^ 

s 

1 

_Q 

^ 

^ 

-a 

■si 

% 

^  . 

c 

O) 

CO 

3 

<*?) 

d: 

i<5 

^ 

AN    OUTLINE 


ARGUMENT  AGAINST 


VALIDITY  OF  LAY-BAPTISM. 


REV.  JOHN  D.  OGILBY,  A.  M. 

iSt.  Mark's  Chureh  in  the  Bowery) —Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  tiie  General 
Theological  Seminary  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 


'ONE   LORD,   ONE  FAITH,   ONE   BAPTISM.' 


NEW-YORK  : 
D.    APPLETON    AND    CO.,    200    BROADWAY. 

MDCCCXLII. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  184],  by 

JOHN    D.    OGILBY, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern 
District  of  New- York. 


Universify  Press  : 

JOHN  F.  TROW,  PRliNTER, 

114  Nassau-street, 

New-York. 


^ 


"< 


TO 

THE  RIGHT  REVEREND  FATHERS, 

THE 

BISHOPS   OF    THE    CHURCH  IN   AMERICA, 

CHIEF  PASTORS  OF  THE  FLOCK  OF  CHRIST  AND 

STEWARDS  OF  THE  MYSTERIES  OF  GOD, 

THIS    HUMBLE    EFFORT 

TO    ILLUSTRATE   AN   IMPORTANT   POINT   OF  DOCTRINE 

AND   DISCIPLINE, 

IS   MOST   RESPECTFULLY   INSCRIBED   BY 

THEIR    SERVANT    IN    CHRIST, 


THE  AUTHOR. 


"  In  this  discourse,  I  have  no  aim  to  displease  any, 
nor  any  hope  to  please  all.  If  I  can  help  on  to  truth  in 
the  Church  and  the  peace  of  the  Church  together,  I  shall 
be  glad,  be  it  in  any  measure.  Nor  shall  I  spare  to  speak 
necessary  truth,  out  of  too  much  love  of  peace,  nor  thrust 
on  unnecessary  truth  to  the  breach  of  that  peace,  which 
once  broken  is  not  so  easily  soldered  again.  And  if  for 
necessary  truth's  sake  only,  any  man  will  be  offended,  nay 
take,  nay  snatch  at,  -that  offence  which  is  not  given,  I 
know  no  fence  for  that.  It  is  truth,  and  I  must  tell  it ;  it 
is  the  gospel,  and  I  must  preach  it.  And  far  safer  it  is  in 
this  case  to  bear  anger  from  men,  than  a  wo  from  God." 
Laud's  Conference  with  Fisher^ 


V 


CONTENTS. 


Preface, 


CHAPTER  I. 

State  of  the  Case.    Importance  of  the  Subject,     . 

CHAPTER  11. 

The  Argument  furnished  by  the  very  terms  of  our 
blessed  Saviour's  Commission  to  his  Apostles, 

CHAPTER  m. 

The  Argument  derived  from  the  Nature  of  the 
Holy  Sacrament  itself,  .... 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  onus  prohandi  rests  upon  the  Advocates  of 
Lay-Baptism.  The  sort  of  proof  which  they 
must  bring  to  break  the  force  of  the  foregoing 
Argument.  The  position  of  the  leading  An- 
glican writers  in  favor  of  Lay-Baptism  defined. 
The  position  of  its  American  advocates  widely 
different, 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  evidence,  derived  from  Primitive  Antiquity,  in 
favor  of  Lay-Baptism,  examined.  Its  insuffi- 
ciency shown, 


Page 
7 


13 


1^ 


23 


30 


38 


CHAPTER  VL 

The  Catholic  doctrine  and  usage  of  the  Primitive 
Church  positively  confirm  the  Arguments  of 
Chapters  II.  and  III., 72 

1* 


r       CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VII. 


Page 


An  examinktion  of  sundry  pleas,  by  help  of  which 
the  Advocates  of  Lay-Baplism  attempt  to 
evade  the  Arguments  of  Chapters  11.  and  III. 
1.  Alleged  instances  of  Lay-Baptism  in  the 
New  Testament.  2.  Attempted  parallel  be- 
tween Preaching  and  Baptizing.  3.  Compari- 
son of  Circumcision  and  Baptism.  4.  Asserted 
authority  of  bishops  to  ratily  ex  post  facto  any 
Baptisms  whatsoever, 94 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

An  examination  of  the  Argument  in  favor  of 
Lay-Baptism,  derived  from  the  alleged  conse- 
quences of  the  contrary  doctrine,    .         .         .       Ill 

CHAPTER  IX. 

The  Argument  derived  from  Consequences  against 
Lay-Baptism.  Sundry  Arguments  for  it  briefly 
discussed, 133 

CHAPTER  X. 

The  Erroneous  Notions  of  certain  Fathers  shown 
to  be  the  Source  of  Lay  Baptism.  It  pro- 
gressed joari  _pas5z«  with  Error  and  Corruption, 
until  it  was  established  by  Papal  Sanction,      .     144 

CHAPTER  XL 

The  early  Anglican  Reformers  retained  the  Papal 
Doctrine,  both  as  to  the  absolute  necessity  of 
Baptism,  and  the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism. 
The  Anglican  Church  gradually  returned  to 
the  Primitive  Doctrine  in  both  respects,  and 
conformed  thereto  her  authorized  Standards 
and  Formularies, 158 

CHAPTER  XII. 

The  American  Liturgy.     The  alleged  Practice  of 

the  American  Church.     Conclusion,       .         .       179 

Notes, 187 


'.'-s     C>     '*  -^ 


PREFACE. 


The  Author  of  this  "  Outline"  is  aware  that 
some  apology  may  be  thought  necessary  for  bring- 
ing forth,  into  the  open  arena  of  public  discussion, 
a  subject,  which  has  been  suffered  to  repose  in  un- 
broken silence  during  the  whole  period  that  has 
elapsed  since  the  independent  organization  of  the 
Church  in  America.  It  is  true  that  the  subject  has 
not  been  wholly  unheeded  ;  that  the  principles  ad- 
vocated in  these  pages  have  been  secretly  and 
quietly  gaining  ground  5  and  that  they  have  been 
practically  carried  out  in  many  instances  within 
the  last  few  years ;  but  still  noiselessly  and  almost 
invisibly.  Nor  would  the  present  writer  have  taken 
upon  himself  the  responsibility  of  disturbing  the 
even  tenor  of  their  way,  had  he  not  been  con- 
strained so  to  do  by  the  instinctive  impulse  of  self- 
defence,  as  well  as  by  a  sense  of  official  responsi- 
bility. 

It  is  already  known,  most  probably,  to  all  the 
readers  of  this  publication,  that  a  recent  Baptism  by 
him  of  two  persons  who  had  previously  received 
Lay-Baptism,  has  excited  no  small  degree  of  at- 
tention, and  has  raised  against  him  no  little  outcry. 
Some  have  objected  to  that  Baptism  on  account  of 
the  mode  adopted.  He  has  deemed  it  best  not  to 
divert  attention  from  the  main  question  by  treating 
of  this  matter  on  the  present  occasion.  It  may  be 
presumed  that  most  objectors   find  fault  with  him 


8  '  PREFACE. 

for  re-baptizing  those  who  had  already  received  (as 
they  allege)  a  valid  Baptism. 

As  has  been  already  hinted,  the  administration 
of  Baptism  under  such  circumstances  is  no  new 
thing-.  But  as  the  Baptism  in  question  was  by  im- 
mersion in  the  river,  and  in  the  presence  of  a  good- 
ly number  of  witnesses,  this  particular  ministration 
became  publicly  known :  and  since  it  was  the  first 
oj5e?i  transgression  of  the  kind,  the  sins  of  all  who 
had  preceded  him  in  such  ministrations,  were  visited 
upon  this  single  offender,  at  least  by  some.  Neither 
seeking  secrecy  on  the  one  hand,  nor  courting  no- 
toriety on  the  other,  he  has  been  dragged  before 
the  bar  of  private  judgment,  and  condemned  or  ac- 
quitted, without  the  form  of  trial,  according  to  the 
prepossessions  of  his  several  self-constituted  judg- 
es. He  has  therefore  seen  fit  to  appeal  to  the 
Church  at  large,  and  to  set  forth,  in  the  following 
"  Outline  of  the  Argument  against  the  Validity  of 
Lay-Baptism,"  the  principles  and  reasons  which 
have  governed  his  practice.  Experience  and  ob- 
servation have  convinced  him,  that  involuntary  ig- 
norance and  hereditary  prejudice  combined,  have 
for  the  most  part  sustained  the  practice  of  allowing 
Lay-Baptism,  which  has  obtained  too  generally  in 
the  Church.  The  design  therefore  of  this  "Out- 
line" is  to  put  it  in  the  power  of  all,  who  are  willing 
to  be  at  a  little  pains,  to  form  a  correct  judgment  in 
regard  to  the  merits  of  the  controversy  ;  or,  at  the 
least,  to  prepare  them  for  entering  upon  a  more 
thorough  investigation  of  the  subject. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  the  argument  is  ex- 
hausted here.  Those  who  wish  to  follow  it  fur- 
ther may  consult,  in  favor  of  Lay-Baptism,  Hook- 
er's "Ecclesiastical  Polity"  (5th  Book); — Bing- 
ham's "  Scholastical  History  of  Lay-Baptism, — • 
and  Kelsall's  "  Answer  to  Dr.  Waterland's  First 
Letter"  (contained  in   the  10th  vol.  of   Dr.  W.'s 


PREFACE.  9 

Works).  On  the  other  side,  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
study  Waterland's*  "  Letters"  on  the  subject,  in  the 
10th  vol.  of  his  Works;  and  Lawrence's  "Lay- 
Baptism  Invalid."  The  latter  work  the  writer  has 
never  seen;  he  relies  for  its  character  upon  the 
report  of  others.  His  "  Sacerdotal  Powers"  is 
well  worthy  of  perusal;  as  also  Bennett's  "  Rights 
of  the  Clergy."  Indeed,  any  one,  who  agrees  with 
the  Author  in  regard  to  the  principles  laid  down  in 
the  first  three  chapters  of  this  "Outline,"  might 
safely  stop  after  reading  the  authorities  referred  to 
in  favor  of  Lay-Baptism.  With  the  profoundest 
reverence  for  "the  judicious  Hooker,"  the  Author 
has  never  read  that  particular  portion  of  his  great 
Work,  without  being  reminded  of  Horace's  words, 
"  bonus  dormitat  Homerus."  Where  Hooker  fails 
to  make  out  his  case,  Bingham  and  Kelsall  may  not 
hope  for  success. 

The  modern  opponent  of  Lay-Baptism  is  under 
great  disadvantage  in  being  obliged  to  run  coun- 
ter to  the  private  opinions  of  some  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished names  in  the  Anglican  Church  since  the 
Reformation.  It  may  look,  at  first  sight,  like  pre- 
sumption in  one  unknown  to  fame,  to  reject  the 
verdict  of  theologians,  at  whose  feet  he  might  sit 
as  a  learner  (on  most  subjects)  with  credit  and  ad- 
vantage to  himself.  And  it  would  indeed  be  the 
height  of  presumption,  were  it  not  that  he  is  privi- 
leged to  appeal  to  a  higher  tribunal  than  even  that 
which  is  graced  by  the  Hookers,  the  Binghams,  and 
the  Potters  of  our  venerable  Mother  Church,  and  by 
the  Patriarchal  White  of  our  own,— even  the  au- 

*  Dowling  (^'  Introduction,  to  the  Critical  Study  of  Ec- 
clesiastical History j"  p.  195)  speaks  of  Waterland  as  ^*  the 
last  of  our  great  patristical  scholars."  The  Author's  great 
obligations  to  him  are  repeatedly  acknowledged  in  the  course 
of  the  following  "  Outline," 


10 


PREFACE. 


gust  tribunal  of  the  Primitive  Fathers,  the  only- 
competent  Witnesses  to  Apostolic  and  Catholic 
Practice  j  the  highest  Court  of  Appeal,  where  holy- 
Scripture  is  silent,  or  its  true  sense  and  scope  the 
subject  matter  of  dispute. 

The  Author  trusts  that  he  has  learned  more 
thoroughly  than  he  had  before,  from  the  investiga- 
tion of  this  subject,  a  two-fold  lesson,  which  every 
Catholic  ought  to  learn  by  heart,  as  fundamental  to 
true  Churchmanship, — to  he  humble  in  mind,  when- 
ever and  wherever  mere  private  judgment  is  concern- 
ed, in  view  of  the  errors  of  men  wiser  and  better 
than  himself, — to  be  thankful  in  heart,  that  God's 
grace  has  not  left  his  Church  without  a  competent 
Witness  and  Umpire  in  doubtful  and  difficult  ques- 
tions of  Doctrine  and  Discipline,*  viz.  the  Fathers 
of  the  first  four  centuries,  in  whose  writings  are 
embodied,  for  our  benefit,  the  Doctrine  and  Disci- 
pline of  the  Primitive  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church. 

it  is  hardly  necessary  to  remark  in  this  place, 
what  is  obvious  from  the  course  of  reasoning  pur- 
sued, that  this  little  work  is  designed  mainly  for 
those,  v^'ho  are  professedly  Churchmen.  All  the  de- 
nominations in  the  country,  who  hold  to  a  Ministry 
by  successio?i  (i.  e.  all  but  the  various  modifications 
of  Congregationalism)^  are  in  general  consistent  in 
this  matter,  and  make  the  validity  of  the  Sacra- 
ments to  depend  upon  the  legality  and  regularity  of 

*  It  is  hardly  neccessary  to  remark  that  the  Author,  with 
the  Church,  defers  to  the  Fathers,  not  as  infallible  doctors,  but 
as  competent  witnesses  to  facts,  whether  of  doctrine  or  dis- 
cipline. Their  individual  opinions  are  to  be  taken  for 
what  they  are  worth  ;  their  concurrent  testimony  is  to  be  re- 
ceived as  historical  truth,  whether  it  relate  to  the  practice 
or  the  teaching  of  the  inspired  Apostles, 


PREFACE.  11 

the  Ministration.  Between  them  and  us  there  is 
no  controversy  on  this  subject  of  Lay-Baptism  con- 
sidered by  itself:  our  difference  is  as  to  what  con- 
stitutes a  legal  and  regular  Ministry.  This  point 
is  here  assumed,  as  the  Church  has  defined  it. 

The  only  consistent  advocates  of  Lay-Baptism 
(as  we  think  are  the  C ongregat ionalists,  or  those 
who  deny  a  Ministry  perpetuated  by  successive  ordi- 
nations ;  and  who  virtually  hold  Tertullian's  con- 
ceit of  the  inherent  Priesthood  of  every  Christian, 
According  to  which  theory  of  course  every  man 
may  and  can  administer  the  Sacraments  ;  although 
for  the  sake  of  decency  and  order,  no  man  ought  so 
to  do,  until  he  has  received  some  sort  of  authority 
from  the  expressed  consent  of  those  whom  it  may 
concern. 

Many,  no  doubt,  who  are  shut  out  of  the  Minis- 
try, or  of  the  visible  fold  of  Christ,  by  the  definition 
of  lawful  Ministration  all  along  implied  in  these 
pages,  will  charge  the  Church  and  the  present  wri- 
ter with  "want  of  charity,"  "  illiberality,"  "big- 
otry," &c.  To  such  he  would  briefly  say,  that 
when  they  relinquish  every  principle,  which  infer- 
entially  condemns  others,  they  may  with  more  de- 
cency make  the  demand  of  him  and  of  the  Church. 
Let  not  the  Calvinist,  who  condemns  all,  but  his  se- 
lect few,  to  absolute  and  inevitable  perdition — nor 
the  non-Episcopal  Trinitarian,  of  whatever  name, 
who  virtually  un-Christianizes  the  Socinian  and  Ari- 
an — presume  to  charge  with  "bigotry" the  Church- 
man, who,  holding  Episcopal  ordination  essential 
to  legal  or  valid  ministration  in  holy  things,  does 
consistently  therewith  class  all  not  thus  ordained 
as  Laymen,  and  their  Baptisms  as  Lay-Baptisms. 
Theirs  is  the  very  quintessence  of  bigotry,  who 
charge  the  breach  of  charity  on  him  who,  in  the 
exercise  of  that  "liberty  of  conscience"  (of  which 
some  talk  so  much),  dares  to  hold  and   follow   out 


12    ,  ^*      '^'        '  PREFACE. 

any  prfnciple,  that  their  infallibility  has  not  first  ap- 
proved and  sanctioned.  \ 

In  conclusion,  the  Author  respectfully  requests 
of  those,  who  hold  that  grave  questions  in  Doctrine 
and  Discipline  should  be  decided  by  reasoning,  and 
not  by  railing,  to  grant  him  a  patient  hearing  j  re- 
garding the  matter,  rather  than  the  manner  and 
style,  of  his  "  Outline."  Unavoidable  haste  in  its 
execution  must  apologize  for  defects  in  the  latter 
respect :  if  other  duties  had  not  interfered,  he  would 
gladly  have  devoted  more  weeks,  than  he  has  been 
able  to  give  days,  to  its  preparation.  Desirous  that 
truth  may  be  ascertained  and  prevail,  he  asks  for  the 
matter  nothing  more  than  fair  and  Christian  treat- 
ment. 

General  Theological  Seminary, 
October  6th,  1841, 


w^%^ 


9^s 


O, 


CHAPTER    I. 

^tate  of  the  Case.     Importance  of  the  Subject. 

Fkobi  the  period  of  the  Anglican  Reformation 
down  to  the  present  time,  there  has  existed,  both 
in  the  Anglican  and  in  the  American  branches  of 
the  Church  Catholic  much  diversity  of  opinion  in 
respect  to  the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism^  i.  e.  Baptism 
(or  xheform  thereof)  administered  by  such  as  have 
not  received  a  regular  commission  to  act  as  Christ's 
Ministers,  from  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles,  the 
Bishops  of  the  Church  of  God.  None  admit  the 
regularity  or  legality  of  Lay-Baptism^  who  maintain 
that  Episcopal  Ordination  is  necessary  to  consti- 
tute a  man  an  Ambassador  of  God.  With  those 
who  deny  that  Episcopal  Ordination  is  essential  to 
a  regular^  legal^  and  valid  Ministry,  we  have  no 
common  ground.  For  we  regard  as  Laymen  all, 
who  have  not  a  commission  Episcopally  conveyed. 
Our  argument  is  with  those,  who,  while  they  main- 
tain (according  to  the  Primitive  and  Catholic  rule, 
nulla  Ecclesia  sine  Episcopo^  "no  Church  without 
the  Bishop,")  that  a  Commission,  derived  from 
2 


14  '         LAY-BAPTISM. 

Christ  through  His  Apostles  and  their  Episcopal 
Successors,  is  essential  to  regular  and  legal  minis- 
tration in  things  divine,  hold,  notwithstanding,  that 
the  irregular  and  illegal  ministration  of  the  Holy 
Sacrament  of  Baptism  (in  particular),  whether  by- 
laymen  in  or  out  of  the  Church,  is  truly  a  Sacrament 
and  valid  to  the  receiver ;  so  that  the  regular  and 
legal  ministration  of  that  Sacrament,  by  a  lawful 
Minister,  to  one  thus  irregularly  and  illegally  bap- 
tized (as  they  term  it),  is  nothing  less  than  an  in- 
fringement of  the  Scriptural  and  Catholic  rule  of 
"  one  Baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  a  deliber- 
ate attempt  to  do  a  second  time  w^hat  Christ  re- 
quires to  be  done  once  for  all. 

Now  it  is  obviously  clear  and  certain,  that  the 
issue  here  presented  is  one  of  the  greatest  mo- 
ment, w^hichever  of  the  two  opposite  views  be  in 
accordance  with  truth.  For,  if  Lay-Baptism  be 
indeed  valid^  then  are  certain  among  us  guilty  of 
great  and  grievous  presumption,  in  attempting  to 
give  a  better  and  more  perfect  Baptism  than  that 
which  Christ  and  his  Church  allow.  And,  further- 
more, the  relation  of  the  motley  and  multitudinous 
assemblages  around  us  to  the  Church  itself,  is  very 
different  from  what  they  hold  it  to  be,  who  deny 
both  their  Orders  and  their  Baptism.  For,  if  they 
possess  and  confer  a  valid  Baptism,  then  are  the  in- 
dividuals, who  compose  them,  members  of  Christ's 
Body,  the  Church,  and  in  the  most  anomalous  and 


LAY-BAPTISM.  15 

contradictory  position  imaginable,  viz.,  that  of 
being,  at  one  and  the  sanne  time,  in  and  out  of  the 
Church  ,•  or  (as  it  may  be  translated),  "  of  being  in 
two  places  at  once." 

Nor  will  it  answer  to  evade  or  explain  away 
this  difficulty,  by  alleging  as  parallel  the  case  of 
the  ancient  Schismatics  and  Heretics,  wdio  were 
readmitted  to  the  communion  of  the  Church  (ex- 
cept by  the  Africans  and  Asiatics  for  a  time),  after 
confession  and  penance,  without  re-bajptization^  pro- 
vided always  their  Baptism  had  been  conferred 
agreeably  to  Christ's  institution.  For,  be  it  ob- 
served, these  had  a  legal  ministry,  and  had  receiv- 
ed the  "  one  Baptism"  committed  to  the  ministry 
of  Apostolic  succession  ;*  and  their  case  was  that 
of  those  in  our  day,  who,  having  become  members 
of  the  Church  by  /  gal  and  regular  Baptism,  are 
afterwards  excommunicated  for  evil  living  or  teach- 
ing, and  again  restored  to  communion  after  due  satis- 
faction for  their  fault.  The  ancient  Heretics  were 
really  (suspended)  members  of  the  Church.  The 
modern  sectaries  are  in  no  sense  such,  unless  they 
have  made  themselves  such  by  baptizing  them- 
selves. 

If,  on  the  other  hand.  Lay -Baptism  be  invalid 
(as  well  as  illegal  and  irregular)^  then  are  the  con- 

*  See  Chapter  VI.,  under  the  head  of  St.  Cyprian's  testi- 
jnony^  for  a  fall  exposition  of  this  subject. 


16  '         LAY-BAPTISM. 

sequences  most  serious  to  all  such  as  have  receiv- 
ed no  other  Baptism.  For  they  are  in  no  proper 
sense  "members  of  Christ"  and  of  His  Church. 
That  is,  they  have  no  covenant  right  to  claim  that 
high  and  gracious  privilege.  We  presume  not  to 
say,  that  they  cannot  and  wiJl  not  "  see  God  ;" 
that  for  them  "  Christ  has  died  in  vain."  We  for- 
get not,  that  "judgment  helongeth  unto  God," 
and  that  He  "  will  have  mercy,  and  not  sacrifice." 
But  we  do  say  (what  is  a  necessary  logical  conse- 
quence, if  Baptism  be  the  Seal  of  the  Covenant  of 
Grace,  and  a  means  of  Grace)  that  they  are  not 
Members  of  the  visible  Church  of  God  ;  and  that 
they  must  lose  the  blessings,  which  God  ordinarily 
conveys  through  the  medium  of  the  Church  and  of 
its  Divine  Ministrations  ;  unless  God  miraculously 
or  extraordinarily  supply  them  in  some  other  way. 
This  He  may  do,  if  He  will  j  but  this  He  has  not 
promised  to  do  :  nor  may  we  expect  or  claim  it  of 
Him,  without  grievous  folly  and  presumption. 

Above  all  does  this  inquiry  concern  that  im- 
portant and  increasing  class  of  the  adherents  to 
the  Church,  who  have  come  over  from  the  Sects 
around  us.  It  surely  is  their  solemn  duty  to  ascer- 
tain, if  possible,  whether  they  are  really  of  the 
Church,  as  well  as  apparently  within  it.  The  mere 
fact,  that  several  of  our  Bishops,  and  many  of  our 
Clergy  and  theologians,  regard  their  Baptism  as 
invalid  {null  and  void)^  should  move  them  to  pros- 


LAY-BAPTISM.  17 

ecute  the  inquiry  with  alacrity  and  diligence. 
Nor  let  them  imagine,  that,  allowing  their  Baptism 
to  be  invalid^  this  defect  has  been  supplied  by 
their  having  received  the  Apostolic  rite  of  Confir- 
mation ;  or  by  their  having  long  partaken  of  the 
Holy  Communion  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our 
Saviour  Christ.  For  neither  Confirmation,  nor  the 
Holy  Communion  includes  Baptism, — the  former 
being  at  most  only  supplemental  to  Baptism,  and 
the  latter  the  right  and  privilege  of  those  only  who 
have  received  it.  Moreover  Baptism,  Confirma- 
tion, and  the  Communion  of  our  Lord's  Body  and 
Blood,  are  to  be  severally  received,  each  by  and  for 
itself  in  their  proper  order,  by  every  one  who 
would  approve  himself  an  obedient  disciple  of 
Christ.  The  receiving  of  one  is  not  the  receiving 
of  the  other  j  to  receive  two,  and  to  omit  the 
third,  is  to  break  God's  holy  ordinance;  here,  as 
elsewhere,  to  "  offend  in  one  point"  is  to  be 
"guilty  of  all." 

In  the  ancient  Church,  it  is  true.  Confirmation 
was  allowed  to  supply  whatever  of  spiritual  grace 
was  wanting  in  the  Baptism  conferred  by  heretical 
or  schismatical  Ministers.  But  then  it  was  held, 
that  these  had  power,  by  virtue  of  their  legal  ordi- 
nation, to  administer  the  Sacraments  truly  and 
validly  ;  albeit  their  disaffection  to  the  Church,  and 
alienation  or  excommunication  from  it,  made  the 
act  one  of  disobedience  and  contumacy  on  their 
2* 


18  ,  LAY-BAPTISM. 

part,  and  deprived  those  who  knowingly  and  wil- 
fully partook    of  their    heresy    or   schism  of  the 
spiritual  benefits,  in  whole  or  in  part,  which  Bap- 
tism duly  received,  as  well  as  duly  administered, 
is  the  means  of  conveying.     These  latter,  however, 
did   receive  a   valid  Baptism,  and    were    thereby 
grafted  into    Christ^s  Body  the    Church ;  so   that 
when  they  repented  of  their  sin,  and  made  atone- 
ment therefor,  they  were  absolved  from  the  penal- 
ties  of  disobedience,  and  the  spiritual  defects  of 
their  Baptism  were  supplied  by  the  laying  on  of 
the  Bishop's  hands  in  Confirmation.*     This  case  is 
in  nowise   parallel   to  that  of  such   as  have  only 
received  Lay-Baptism^  i.  e.  (as  we   contend),  who 
have  received   no  Baptism   at  all.      Confirmation 
cannot  supply  the  defects  of  such  Baptism  j   for 
a  non-entity  can  have  no  supplement. 

In  either  view  of  the  case,  then,  it  is  one  of  most 
thrilling  interest;  afi^ecting  the  Ministerial  conduct 
of  Christ's  Ambassadors ;  involving  the  spiritual 
condition  and  welfare  of  thousands  now  existing, 
and  of  millions  yet  unborn  ;  and  imposing  an  awful 
weight  of  obligation  and  responsibility  on  the 
Church  of  God,  the  "Pillar  and  Ground  of  the 
Truth,"  and  the  Steward  of  His  Holy  Mysteries. — 
Well  may  we,  wisely  will  we,  address  ourselves, 
humbly  and  diligently,  to  this  high  argument. 

*  See  Note  (A)  at  the  end  of  the  volume. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  19 


CHAPTER  IT. 

The  Argument  furnished  by  the  very  Terms  of  our 
blessed  Saviour^s  Commission  to  his  Jlpostles. 

"  And  Jesus  came,  and  spake  unto  them,  saying,  All 
power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye, 
therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teach- 
ing them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you.  And  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world.      Amen."     St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  xxviii.  18 — 20. 

In  the  foregoing  quotation  from  the  Word  of 
God  we  have  that  final  and  solemn  sentence  of  our 
Lord,  whereby,  when  he  had  finished  His  own  min- 
istry on  earth,  He  transferred  the  duty  of  carrying 
it  on  in  His  stead  to  the  Apostles,  whom  He  had 
chosen.  He  had  before  committed  to  them  the 
keys  of  the  "  Kingdom  of  Heaven,"  with  the  prom- 
ise and  pledge,  that  what  they  bound  on  Earth 
should  be  bound  in  Heaven.  He  now  repeats  both 
the  commission  and  the  promise.  After  asserting 
His  own  delegated  omnipotence  as  the  Head  of  the 
Church  in  virtue  of  His  obedience.  He  sends  them, 
1,  to  prepare  men  for  admission  to  His  Kingdom  by 
preaching  the  Gospel, — "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and 
teach  all  nations  j"  2,  to  admit  them,  when  thus  pre- 


20  ,  LAY-BAPTISM. 

pared,  within  the  Church's  fold, — "baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost ;"  3,  to  guide  and  govern  them,  af- 
ter their  admission,  agreeably  to  His  ordinances 
and  precepts, — "  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you ;"  and, 
4,  He  gives  them  the  promise  of  His  presence  and 
protection,  and  extends  that  promise,  as  well  as  His 
commission,  to  all  of  the  Apostolic  Line  to  the  end 
of  time, — "  And  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world.     Amen." 

We  are  chiefly  concerned  at  present  with  the 
second  head,  relating  to  the  admission  of  men  to 
the  Church.  Now,  be  it  observed,  that  our  Saviour 
here  expressly  commits  and  confines  to  His  Apos- 
tles alone  the  power  of  admitting  men  to  His  Church, 
and  puts  the  key  that  opens  the  door  thereof,  viz. 
Holy  Baptism,  into  their  keeping.  He  gives  this 
prerogative  of  Baptizing  as  exclusively  to  them,  as 
He  does  the  prerogatives  of  Teaching,  Ordering, 
and  Governing  the  Church.  By  the  terms  of  our 
Saviour's  Commission,  then,  no  one  may  presume 
to  baptize  ;  or,  if  he  presume  so  to  do,  claim  valid- 
ity for  his  ministration,  who  cannot  show  that  the 
Apostles  have  delegated  to  him  their  authority,  and 
thereby  given  him  a  share  of  their  Commission. — 
Had  not  the  Apostles  themselves  communicated  to 
others,  not  of  their  own  order,  one  or  more  of  the 
powers  conveyed  to  them  by  the  Commission  of 


LAY-BAPTISM.  21 

their  ascending  Lord ;  then  each  and  all  of  those 
powers  must,  to  the  end  of  time,  have  been  vested 
exclusively  in  those,  who  derive  their  spiritual  au- 
thority directly  from  the  Apostles  themselves,  and 
are  their  proper  lineal  successors,  viz.  the  Bishops 
of  the  Church.  For  the  assumption  of  any  one, 
even  the  least  important,  of  those  powers,  without 
the  warrant  and  direction  of  the  Apostles,  by  one 
not  of  their  Order,  would  have  been  an  open  and 
flagrant  violation  of  the  very  letter  of  the  Divine 
Commission,  and  an  insult  to  His  authority,  from 
whose  grace  it  emanated. 

Accordingly  we  find  as  an  historical  fact,  that 
a  portion  of  the  power,  which  was  given  in  solidum 
to  each  and  all  of  the  Apostolic  College,  was  by  the 
Apostles  themselves  imparted  by  Commission  to 
others  (besides  their  Apostolic  or  Episcopal  suc- 
cessors), in  different  degrees,  viz.  to  the  Presby- 
ters and  Deacons,  whom  they  thereby  constituted 
respectively  the  second  and  third  grades  of  the  Ho- 
ly Ministry  ;  and  whose  competency  to  minister 
in  holy  things,  in  their  several  proportions  and  in 
due  subordination  to  the  Apostolic  Order,  has  ever 
since  been  acknowledged  by  the  several  branches 
of  the  Catholic  Church. 

The  fact,  that  this  communication  of  their  min- 
isterial powers  and  prerogatives,  to  the  orders  just 
named,  was  made  by  the  divinely  inspired  Apostles, 
warrants  us  in  taking  it  for  granted  that  they  acted 


22  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

in  this  matter  agreeably  to  the  will  of  their  Lord, 
in  the  exercise  of  the  power  conveyed  to  them  un- 
der the  third  head  of  their  Commission.  Had  not 
the  Apostles,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
brought  the  Presbyters  and  Deacons  within  the 
scope  of  their  Commission,  any  attempt,  on  the 
part  of  these,  to  act  in  Christ's  name  and  stead, 
would  be  a  gross  usurpation,  which  the  Church 
must  have  disowned  and  annulled.  By  the  same 
rule  the  Church  is  bound  to  disown  and  annul  the 
ministerial  acts  of  laymen^  whether  within  or  with- 
out her  fold  \  unless  indeed  they  can  bring  some 
competent  voucher  for  their  asserted  right  other 
than  Christ's  Commission. 

It  belongs  to  another  chapter  to  examine  the 
pretensions  of  those,  who,  having  no  part  in  our 
Lord's  Commission,  would  fain  persuade  us  that 
they  too  hold  the  key  of  His  Kingdom,  and  that 
they  can  and  do  open  it  to  whom  they  list,  in  spite 
of  his  prohibition. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  23 


CHAPTER   III. 

The  Argument  derived  from  the  Xature  of  the  Holy 
Sacrament  itself, 

"  Baptism  is  not  only  a  sign  of  profession,  and  mark  of 
difference^  whereby  Christian  men  are  discerned  from  others 
that  be  not  christened  ;  but  it  is  also  a  sign  of  regeneration, 
or  new  birth,  whereby,  as  by  an  instrument,  they  that  receive 
Baptism  rightly  are  grafted  into  the  Church  ;  the  promises  of 
the  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  of  our  adoption  to  he  the  sons  of 
God  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  visibly  signed  and  sealed. " — 
,^rt.  xxvii. 

Taking  the  italicised  portion  of  the  foregoing 
quotation  from  the  27th  Article  of  our  Church  as  a 
just  exhibition  of  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  Baptism, 
in  the  aspect  which  now  concerns  us,  we  maintain 
that  the  argument,  derived  from  the  JVaiure  of  the 
Holy  Sacrament  itself,  strengthens  the  position, 
already  made  good  in  the  preceding  chapter,  viz., 
that  none  can  validly  administer  Baptism,  who  have 
not  received  a  regular  Commission  to  serve  at  His 
altar  from  the  Author  of  the  Sacrament  himself  j 
or,  in  other  words,  that  Lay-Baptism  is  invalid.^  as 
well  as  illegal  and  irregular. 

The  words  of  the  Article  referred  to  most  clear- 
ly and  truly  set  forth  Baptism,  not  only  as  a  "  sign" 


24  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

and  "  instrument,"  of  Regeneration,  but  also  as  the 
SIGN  and  SEAL  of  the  New,  or  Evangelic^  Covenant. 
To  this  Covenant  there  are  two  parties,  God  and 
Man.  That  the  Covenant  between  the  contracting 
parties  may  be  duly  ratified  and  mutually  binding, 
it  must  be  signed  and  sealed  by  both  of  them,  act- 
ing immediately  ioY  themselves,  or  mediately  through 
the  agency  of  one  or  more,  whom  they  have  form- 
ally empowered  and  commissioned  to  act  in  their 
stead.  Man  signs  and  seals  the  Covenant,  partly 
in  person  or  by  his  sponsors,  partly  by  the  officia- 
ting Minister.  God  acts  wholly  by  His  representa- 
tive or  proxy,  whom  He  designates  and  authorizes. 
*'  And  no  man  taketh  this  honor  unto  himself,  but 
he  that  is  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron."*  "  J^To  man 
taketh  ;"  i.  e.  no  man  can  take :  for  to  say  that  no 
man  does  take,  were  false.  "Witness,  under  the 
Aaronic  Priesthood,  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram  ; 
and,  under  the  Christian,  the  countless  usurpers  of 
this  sacred  office.  Men  may  now,  as  of  old, 
*'  gather  themselves  together  against"  the  duly 
commissioned  Ministers  of  God,  and  say  "  unto 
them,  Ye  take  too  much  upon  you,  seeing  all  the 
congregation  are  holy,  every  one  of  them,  and  the 
Lord  is  among  them  :  wherefore,  then,  lift  ye  up 
yourselves  above  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  1" 
They  may  "  take  every  man  his  censer,  and  put 

*  Hebrews  5  :  4. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  25 

fire  in  them,  and  lay  incense  thereon,  and  stand  in 
the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  with 
Moses  and  Aaron."  But  God  will  not  "respect 
their  offering,"  nor  make  good  their  acts ;  for  "  the 
man  whom  the  Lord  doth  choose,  he  shall  be  holy  ;" 
"  even  him  whom  He  hath  chosen,  will  He  cause 
to  come  near  unto  Hira."*  He  may  not  vindicate 
their  exclusive  right  to  act  for  Him  in  holy  things, 
as  He  did  that  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  by  a  miracu- 
lous attestation  of  His  displeasure  j  nor  need  He, 
for  "the  things  that  were  written  aforetime,  were 
written  for  our  learning."  But  sooner  or  later 
"the  fire  shall  try  every  man's  work,  of  what  «ort 
it  is,"t 

No  man  may^  no  man  can^  no  man  does  act  in 
God's  place,  unless  God  hath  called,  chosen,  and 
commissioned  him.  Let  him  then,  who  would  set 
God's  seal  to  the  New,  or  Evangelic  Covenant,  by 
Holy  Baptism,  show  his  Commission,  ;  let  him  prove 
that  "he  is  called,  as  was  Aaron;"  or  else  let  him 
not  cry  out  against  those  who  refuse  to  acknovv'- 
ledge  his  counterfeit  signature  and  seal.  "  Ye  take 
too  much  upon  you,  ye  sons  of  Levi." 

There  is  another  view  of  the  Sacrament  of  Bap- 
tism which  confirms  the  foregoing  argument.  The 
administration  of  it  involves  a  Vriestly  agency,  in 
consecrating^  both  the  water  to  the  use  of  Baptism, 

t  1  Cor.  3  :  13. 


26  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

without  which  itis  not  the  "  laver  of  regeneration," 
and  the  person  baptized  to  the  service  of  God. 
This  may  be  illustrated  by  the  other  Sacrament  of 
the  Holy  Eucharist.  There  too  there  is  a  Conse- 
cration of  the  Elements  of  Bread  and  Wine,  with- 
out which  they  are  not  sacramentally  "  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ ;"  and  an  oblation  of  the  com- 
municants to  God.  Furthermore  Baptism  was 
anciently  reckoned  the  grand  Absolution,  since 
it  is  by  our  Saviour's  appointment  the  means  of 
conveying  "  remission  of  sins."  Now  to  give 
Absolution  has  ever  been  accounted  a  Priestly 
act.*  The  necessity  of  lawful  ministration  in 
the  one  Sacrament  is  acknowledged  on  the  very 
ground  here  asserted.  Why  should  it  not  be 
allowed  for  the  same  reason  in  the  other  like- 
wise 1  No  reason  can  be  assigned  unless  it  be 
this,  that  the  appropriation  of  the  title  "  Priest" 
to  the  second  grade  of  the  Ministry  has  given  rise 
to  the  groundless  notion  that  the  Deacons  do  not 
belong  to  the  Priesthood ;  and  consequently  that 
Baptism,  to  which  they  are  competent,  is  not  a 
Priestly  act.  This  mode  of  reasoning,  however, 
proves  too  much ;  for  in  the  same  way  it  were 
easy  to  exclude  Bishops  likewise  from  the  Priest- 
hood.    Now  it  is  plain  that  consecration  of  Water 

*  Vide  Waterland,  VII.  p.  239,  ss.      VIII.  p.  222,  257— 
260.      Bingham,  Book  xix.  c.  1. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  27 

in  Holy  Baptism,  so  that  it  shall  represent  mystic- 
ally the  renewing  and  life-giving  energy  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  is  as  much  a  Priestly  act  as  to  conse- 
crate Bread  and  Wine  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  so 
that  they  become  spiritually  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ.  And  to  set  apart  a  human  being /or  the 
first  time  and  forever  to  the  service  of  God  is  not 
less  a  Priestly  act  than  to  repeat  that  consecration 
afterwards.  It  is  true  that  there  is,  beyond  this 
limit,  a  distinction  and  a  difference  between  the 
ministration  of  the  two  Sacraments  severally  ;  and 
that  Deacons  are  not  competent  to  administer  one 
of  them.  This  does  not  prove,  however,  that  they 
are  destitute  of  the  Priestly  character^  but  rather  that 
they  have  not  so  much  Priestly  ^ow^er  as  the  Pres- 
byters 5  even  as  these  have  less  than  the  Bishops.* 
Now  can  any  one  usurp  the  Priestly  character,  or 
exercise  (without  a  commission)  Priestly  power, 
unless  he  can  make  himself  indeed  and  in  truth  a 
Priest  1  Assuredly  not ;  "  no  man  taketh  {can  take) 
this  honor  to  himself :  and  what  he  has  no  right  to 
take,  we  have  no  right  to  allow.  "The  Scriptures 
teach  us,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  has  instituted  an  Order 
of  Clergy  :  we  say,  a  Priesthood,  so  authorized,  can 
no  more  be  changed  by  us,  than  we  can  change  the 
Scriptures,  or  make  new  Sacraments  ;  because  they 


*  For  authority  confirming  the  position  here  maintained, 
see  Note  (B). 


28  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

are  all  founded  on  the  same  authority,  without  any 
power  of  a  dispensation  delegated  to  us  in  one  case 
more  than  in  another."  And  "  as  a  true  Priest 
cannot  benefit  us  by  administering  a  false  Sacra- 
ment ;  so  a  true  Sacrament  is  nothing,  when  it  is 
administered  by  a  false  uncommissioned  Minister."* 
It  may  be  as  well  in  this  place  to  expose  a 
sophism,  which  is  frequently  made  to  pass  current 
as  an  argument  in  behalf  of  Lay-Baptisrn.  "  Grant- 
ing," say  its  advocates,  "  that  Lay-Baptism  is  both 
illegal  and  irregular,  still  it  must  be  allowed  to 
be  valid^  on  the  received  maxim,  quod  non  dehuit 
fieri, factum  valet,  i.  e.,  "What  ought  not  to  have 
been  done  is  nevertheless  valid  when  done.''^  Cer- 
tainly what  is  done,  is  done,  and  must  needs  stand, 
or  be  valid.  But  w^ho,  that  is  willing  to  see,  does 
not  see,  that  the  maxim  is  wholly  impertinent  to 
the  case  in  hand  j  that  its  application  here  is  a 
petitio  principii,  a  mere  begging  of  the  question  1 
It  amounts  just  to  this,  "Lay-Baptism  is  truly 
Baptism,  Z>eccfz^5e  zV  w."  Most  admirable  logic  !  In 
this  way  it  were  easy  to  prove  any  thing.  I  repeat, 
then,  for  the  sake  of  distinctness,  that  the  very 
question  at  issue  is,  whether  the  application  ofwater^ 
in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  hy  an  uncommis- 
sioned agent,  or  a  layman,  is  valid  Baptism.  How 
absurd  to  say  that   because  one   man  has   washed 

Law's  Second  Letter  to  Bishop  Hoadley, 


LAY-EAPTISM.  29 

another  with  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  he 
has  therefore  baptized  him  ;  when  the  lis  subjudice, 
the  point  to  be  settled,  is  whether  such  washing 
can  be  called  Baptism.  It  might  seem  trifling  to 
dwell  upon  so  flimsy  a  sophism,  had  it  not,  strange 
to  say,  been  much  insisted  on  by  our  opponents  in 
this  controversy. 

In  a  word,  then,  no  one  can  sign  and  seal  a 
Covenant  but  the  parties  contracting,  or  those 
whom  they  empower  to  act  in  their  name  and  be- 
half. And  if  any  one  pretend  to  covenant  for 
another,  without  his  express  direction  and  com- 
mission, such  act  is  neither  legal,  regular,  nor  valid, 
however  nearly  the  usurping  party  may  copy  the 
hand  and  seal  of  him  whom  he  pretends  to  repre- 
sent. For  the  instrument  which  he  executes, 
though  it  have  the  form  and  semblance  of  a  Cove- 
nant, wants  that  which  is  essential  thereto,  viz.,  the 
express  consent  of  both  the  contracting  parties  ;  and 
is  therefore  no  Covenant.^  According  to  which 
rule  "  Lay-Baptism,"  or  washing  in  the  name  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  administered  by  one  not  authorized 
to  act  for  God,  is  no  Baptism,  pretences  and  ap- 
pearances to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

*  Note  (C). 


3* 


30  V         LAY-BAFTISM, 


CHAPTER    IV. 

The  ONUS  PROBANDi  rests  wpon  the  advocates  of  Lay- 
Baptism.  The  sort  of  Proof  which  they  must 
bring  to  break  the  force  of  the  foregoing  Argument. 
The  position  of  the  leading  Anglican  writers  in 
favor  of  Lay-Baptism  defined.  The  position  of  its 
American  advocates  widely  different, 

¥/e  trust  that  it  has  been  sufficiently  shown 
in  the  foregoing  chapters,  that  by  the  very  terms 
of  our  Blessed  Saviour's  Commission  to  His  Apos- 
tles, and  by  the  nature  of  the  Sacrament  itself,  the 
right  and  power  to  administer  Holy  Baptism  are 
confined  to  those  vv^ho  can  produce  a  regular  Com- 
mission to  act  in  Christ's  behalf  in  holy  things; 
and  that  consequently  Lay-Baptism  is,  invalid  ^  un- 
less the  contrary  can  be  proven  by  evidence  or 
arguments  derived  from  some  other  source.  Now 
since  the  whole  evidence,  both  express  and  im- 
plied, which  is  furnished  by  the  Commission  and 
Institution  of  our  Lord,  makes  in  favor  of  our  posi- 
tion and  against  Lay-Baptism,  it  remains  for  its 
advocates  to  show^,  why  judgment  should  not  be 
entered  against  them.  They  will  not  pretend  to 
deny,  we  presume,  that  as  a  general  rule,  the  power, 
as  well  as  right,  to  baptize  is  vested  only  in  Christ's 
lav^'fully  commissioned  or  ordained  Ministers.    But 


LAY-BAPTISM.  31 

they  claim  that  the  rule  has  its  exceptions.  Now  it 
is  their  duty  to  prove  the  particular  exception  or 
exceptions,  and  to  show  that  they  have  the  same 
warrant  and  authority  as  the  rule  itself.  For  no 
law  can  be  set  aside  or  suspended  save  by  the  law- 
giver, or  by  one  deputed  to  act  in  his  stead.  This 
principle,  which  is  true  in  regard  to  ordinary  laws, 
applies  with  manifold  force  to  Constitutional  enact- 
ments. And  such  is  the  nature  of  our  Saviour's 
injunctions  respecting  the  Ministry  and  the  Sacra- 
ments of  His  Church.  Both  the  one  and  the  other 
are  of  its  essence  ;  destroy  them  and  you  destroy 
it.  All  enactments  therefore  respecting  them  are 
Constitutional  principles,  which  man  cannot,  if  he 
would,  bend  or  break. 

These  remarks  indicate  the  sort  of  proof  too, 
which  the  advocates  of  Lay-Baptism  must  adduce 
to  make  good  their  alleged  exception  or  exceptions 
in  its  favor.  Since  no  Constitutional  principle  can 
be  modified,  except  by  the  party  that  ordained  it  5 
and  since  the  general  rule  respecting  Holy  Baptism 
was  enacted  and  established  by  the  precept  of 
Christ  himself  and  the  practice  of  His  Apostles  j  it 
follows  of  course  that  the  exception  or  exceptions 
must  be  similarly  authorized  and  confirmed.  And 
since  we  Piave  already  granted,  that  the  testimony 
and  practice  of  the  inspired  Apostles  are  a  suffi- 
cient exposition  of  their  Lord's  Commission  and 
Institution  \  it  is   only  required  that  the  claim  of 


32  '        LAY -BAPTISM. 

laymen  to  give  valid  Baptism  shall  be  sustained 
by  the  sanction  of  the  Apostles.  Nothing  short  of 
this  can  meet  the  case,  or  make  good  the  position 
we  assail.  And  inasmuch  as  it  is  plainly  impossi- 
ble to  prove  the  Apostolic  practice  in  this  matter 
with  absolute  certainty,  out  of  the  New  Testament 
alone,  we  shall  cheerfully  accept  the  Catholic  usage 
of  the  Primitive  Church  for  the  first  four  centuries, 
as  a  sufficient  and  satisfactory  voucher  for  the 
practice  of  the  Apostles  themselves.  This  is  both 
reasonable  in  itself,  and  binding  upon  us  as  Church- 
men. Be  it  noted,  however,  that  we  will  not  ac- 
cept as  evidence  the  mere  opinions  of  this  or  that 
Father,  however  illustrious  he  may  be.  His  testi' 
mony  to  the  fact  of  Apostolic  and  Catholic  practice 
must  be  allowed  ;  with  individual  opinions  and 
notions  we  have  at  present  nothing  to  do  ;  nor  will 
the  decision  of  a  local  Synod,  binding  for  a  time 
only  upon  a  part  of  the  Church,  serve  any  better 
purpose  j  it  is  the  consent  of  antiquity  that  is  alone 
decisive  in  such  a  question. 

And  here  in  justice  to  the  leading  Anglican 
writers  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism,  it 
is  our  duty  to  state  what  they  concede  to  us  in  the 
outset,  and  what  they  profess  them.selves  able  and 
v/illing  to  prove.  Mr.  Kelsall  in  his  "  Answer  to 
Br.  WaterlancPs  First  Letter,"  says,  "  The  question 
among  us  is  not  whether  lay-persons  may  lawfully 
baptize,  much  less  exercise  other  parts  of  the  sa- 


LAY-BAPTISM.  33 

cerdotal  office.  So  far  am  I  from  affirming  any 
such  thing-,  that  I  believe,  whatever  pretence  they 
may  have,  so  much  as  to  baptize  even  in  cases  of 
utmost  necessity,  depends  altogether  upon  the  will 
of  their  Ecclesiastical  Superiors"  (i,  e.  the  Bishops 
of  the  Church),  "  who  may  allow  or  disallow  it,  as 
they  see  cause,  being  a  matter  wherein  the  disci- 
pline, rather  than  the  doctrine,  of  the  Church  is 
concerned,  as  I  said  before.  But  to  presume  to 
do  it  in  ordinary  cases,  in  defiance  of  the  Christian 
Priesthood,  as  our  schismatical  lay-preachers  do, 
is  what  we  all  readily  agree,  there  is  no  more 
ground  for  in  Scripture,  than  there  is  for  lay-ordi- 
nation^  lay-ahsolution^''  &c.* 

Did  Mr.  Kelsall  not  depart  from  the  line  of  ar- 
gument here  traced,  which  he  is  sometimes  tempt- 
ed to  do,  it  is  plain  that  the  advocates  of  Lay- 
Baptism,  as  it  flourishes  in  this  Paradise  of  Sects, 
would  find  him  a  broken  reed  to  lean  upon.  For 
here  all  the  Lay-Baptisms  celebrated  are  "  in  ordi- 
nary cases,''''  and  "  in  defiance  of  the  Christian  Priest- 
hood,'''' and  "  as  our  [theirl  schismatical  lay-preach- 
ers do  ;"  even  by  such  as  acknowledge  no  "Eccle- 
siastical Superiors,"  whose  "  v^^ill"  might  make 
valid,  what  else  (Kelsall  judice)  is  invalid.  An 
odd,  if  not  awful,  doctrine,  by  the  way,  that  a 
Bishop's  nod  is  of  the  essence  of  the  sacrament ;  can 

*  ■Wate^land^s  Works^  X.  p,  33, 


34  .         LAY-BAPTISM. 

make  it,  or  annihilate  it !  Rather  worse  this  than 
the  making  lawful  ministration  essential  to  its 
validity.     Thus  do  extremes  meet. 

Let  us  next  see  what  stand  Bingham  takes  : 
"  Now  here  first  of  all  it  is  certain,  that  laymen 
were  always  debarred  from  meddling  with  the  ad- 
ministration of  baptism  in  all  ordinary  cases.  All 
the  former  allegations,  which  make  it  the  proper 
office  of  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  even  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  Deacons,*  are  certainly  of  much  greater 
force  against  the  usurpations  of  laymen.  Besides 
they  are  sometimes  prohibited  in  particular  by 
name  ;  as  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  three  times 
at  least.  The  author,  under  the  name  of  St.  Ambrose, 
says  therefore,  '  that  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles, 
the  inferior  clergy'  (i.  e.  the  sub-deacons,  exorcistSj 
&c.,  who  had  no  sacerdotal  character)  '  and  lay- 
men were  prohibited  to  baptize.'  Which  at  least 
must  be  understood  of  a  prohibition  to  usurp  the 
office,  and  do  it  in  ordinary  cases.  But  still  the 
grand  question  remains, — Whether  ever  they  were 


*  This  "  exclusion  of  Deacons"  from  the  office  of  Bap- 
tizing was  not  a  Catholic  usage.  They  were  always  held  to 
be  competent  to  baptize,  by  virtue  of  their  sacerdotal  charac- 
ter, though  not  always  allowed  to  do  it  in  ordinary  cases, 
i.  e.,  where  a  Priest  of  higher  grade  could  be  had.  So  the 
Church  now  regards  them  as  competent  to  preach  ;  and  yet, 
as  a  matter  of  discipline,  forbids  them  to  do  it,  unless  spe- 
cially licensed  by  the  Bishop.      See  Binghamj  II.  20,  9, 


LAY-BAPTISM.  35 

allowed  to  do  it  in  extraordinary  cases  of  extreme 
necessity^  when  no  public  minister  could  be  procured 
to  do  itr-"^ 

To  the  same  effect  is  Jlrchhishop  Totter'' s  state- 
ment of  the  case.  "It  remains  to  be  considered, 
whether  laymen  may  baptize  j  which  must  not  be 
understood,  as  if  it  was  inquired,  whether  laymen 
may  lawfully  baptize  where  ordained  ministers  can 
be  procured;  for  it  has  been  already  shown,  that 
Baptism  is  annexed  to  the  cure  of  souls,  and  con- 
sequently can  ordinarily  be  administered  by  none, 
but  the  Bishop  and  other  Ministers  whom  he  ap- 
points. But  the  question  is.  Whether  laymen  may 
baptize  in  cases  of  necessity^  where  no  Minister  can  be 
procured^  and  men  are  in  danger  of  dying  unbaptized.^^\ 

These  two  extracts  from  Bingham  and  Potter 
narrow  the  question  exceedingly,  and  leave  the 
advocates  of  Lay-Baptism  in  the  lump  not  an  inch 
of  ground  as  a  foot-hold.  For  not  one  case  in  ten 
thousand  of  the  many  myriads  of  Lay-Baptisms 
taking  place  each  year  around  us,  are  of  the  char- 
acter described,  viz.,  "  extraordinary  cases  of  ex- 
treme necessity  j'^  "  where  no  Minister  can  be  procured^ 
and  men  are  in  danger  of  dying  unbaptized.''^     Alas  ! 


*  Bingham,  Scliol.  Hist.  c.  I.  §  7,  8. 

t  Discourse  on  Church  Government,  Philadelphia  ed. 
p.  230.  For  the  Italics  in  these  two  passages  we  are 
responsible. 


36  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

men  in  general,  in  these  days  of  sublimated  ration- 
alism, ascribe  too  little  virtue  to  sacramental  min- 
istrations to  be  much  alarmed  by  "the  danger  of 
dying  unbaptized  !"  And  those  are  very  rare  and 
"extraordinary  cases,"  where,  even  in  "extreme 
necessity,"  "  no  Minister  can  be  procured."  Were 
the  whole  genus  of  Lay-Baptisms  reduced  to  this 
particular  species^  it  would  be  a  hard  matter  to  lay 
your  finger  on  them  To  ratify  such  Lay-Baptisms 
only  were  to  sanction  a  rare  exception  ;  whereas 
our  opponents  in  this  country  seek  to  make  the 
exception  so  exceeding  broad,  that  it  shall  be  ap- 
plied many  times  more  frequently  than  the  rule  itself. 
Were  it  not  better  to  face  right  about,  or  to  look 
the  way  you  leap ;  and,  with  plain,  downright 
honesty,  at  once  to  make  the  rule  the  exception, 
and  the  exception  the  rule  ;  seeing  that  (according 
to  Mr.  Kelsall)it  is  a  matter  of  "  discipline,"  rather 
than  of  "  doctrine"  1 

We  might  in  fairness,  under  these  circum- 
stances, claim  a  judgment  in  our  favor  by  default, 
seeing  that  the  witnesses  relied  on  against  us  refuse 
to  appear  in  favor  of  the  defendant's  case.  But 
since  complaint  might  be  made  that  we  are  dispos- 
ed to  take  undue  advantage,  we  are  willing  to  ex- 
amine the  witnesses  in  reference  to  the  other  case 
already  stated.  We  think  it  can  be  shown  that 
there  is  no  sufficient  evidence  that  the  Primitive 
Church  Catholic,  for  the  first   four  centuries,  al- 


LAY-BAPTISM.  37 

lowed  the  validity  of  Baptisms  performed  by  lay- 
men, even  "  in  extraordinary  cases  of  extreme  ne- 
cessity." If  not  in  such  cases,  then  a  fortiori  not 
in  those  with  which  alone  we  are  conversant. 


38  LAY-BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER    V. 

The  evidence^  derived  from  Primitive  Antiquity^  in  fa- 
vor of  Lay-Baptism  examined.  Its  insufficiency 
shown. 

Bearing  in  mind  the  sort  of  proof  (viz.,  the 
Catholic  usage  of  the  Primitive  Church  during  the 
first  four  centuries)  required  to  make  good  the 
alleged  exception  in  favor  of  Lay-Baptism  ;  and  also 
the  position  of  the  Anglican  writers  in  relation  to 
the  subject,  as  defined  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
preceding  chapter  ;  let  us  proceed  to  examine,  as 
briefly  as  we  may,  and  in  chronological  order,  the 
witnesses  summoned  by  our  adversaries. 

The  first  witness  in  order  of  time,  alleged  in 
favor  of  Lay-Baptism,  is 

Tertullian,  a.  D.  192. 

There  are  only  two  passages  in  this  author  that 
have  any  bearing  upon  the  case  in  hand.  The  first 
is  from  his  treatise  De  Baptismo^  written  before 
he  became  a  Montanist  :  "  The  chief  Priest,  who 
is  the  Bishop,  has  power  to  give  Baptism  j  and 
after  him  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  yet  not  with- 
out the  authority  of  the  Bishop,  for  the  honor 
of  the  Church,  in  the  preservation  of  which  peace 
is  preserved.  In  another  respect  laymen  have  also 
a  right  to  give  it,  for  what  is  received  in  common, 


LAY-BAPT1SI\I.  39 

may  be  given  in  common.  Baptism  is  God's  pecu- 
liar, and  may  be  conferred  by  all.  But  laymen 
are  in  a  much  greater  degree  obliged  by  the  rules 
of  modesty  in  the  use  of  their  power,  since  they, 
who  are  superior  to  them,  are  obliged  not  to 
assume  to  themselves  the  office,  which  belongs  to 
the  Bishop  only.  Emulation  is  the  mother  of  strife. 
'  All  things  are  lawful,'  says  the  Holy  Apostle, 
'but  all  things  are  not  expedient.'  Therefore  it 
ought  to  suffice  them  to  use  this  power  in  necessi- 
ties, when  the  condition  of  the  place,  or  time,  or 
person,  requires  it  ',  for  then  their  charitable  assist- 
ance is  accepted,  when  the  circumstance  of  one 
in  danger  presses  them  to  it.  And  in  this  case  he 
would  be  guilty  of  a  man's  destruction  that  omitted 
to  do,  what  he  lawfully  might."* 

Now  I  think  it  is  evident  that  Tertullian  in  the 
former  part  of  this  extract  gives  testimony  in  favor 
of  the  Catholic  usage  of  the  Church,  which  confined 
ministration  in  holy  things  to  holy  men,  always 
and  everywhere  ;  and  that  in  the  latter  part  he 
does  but  advance  his  ov:n  private  opinion  or  con- 
ceit. For  (as  Dr.  Waterland  justly  observes) 
"  here  is  not  the  least  intimation  that  the  Church 
in  his  time  either  believed  or  practised  thus,"  i.  e., 
so   as  to   acknowledge  that  Lay-Baptism  is  valid. 

*  Consult  Note  (D)  for  the  Latin  original^  and  for  Bishop 
Kaye's  comments  thereon. 


40  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

"He  appeals  to  no  rule,  order,  or  custom  for  the 
right  of  the  laity,  as  he  does  for  that  of  the  Clergy  ; 
but,  for  want  of  it,  sets  himself  to  invent  reasons, 
and  goes  on  in  arguing  and  debating  the  point  for 
a  good  while  together ;  which  had  been  needless 
had  Lay-Baptism  been  the  current  doctrine  or  prac- 
tice of  the  Church."*  And  as  Mr.  Lawrence  (quoted 
by  Dr.  W.)  argues,  "  the  word,  alioquin^ '  otherwise,' 
is  a  plain  transition  from  his  former  subject  of 
%vhathad  reference  to  the  Church's  law  or  custom; 
and  evidently  shows  that  he  is  going  to  say  some- 
thing that  is  separate  and  distinct  therefrom.  As 
much  as  if  he  had  said,  By  the  law  and  custom  of 
the  Church  the  Bishop  has  power  to  give  Baptism, 
and  after  him  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  yet  not 
without  the  authority  of  the  Bishop,  for  the  honor 
of  the  Church.  Otherwise^  distinct  and  separate 
from  the  consideration  of  this  law  or  custom,  lay- 
men also  have  a  right  to  give  it."t 

Is  it  not  perfectly  obvious  that  if  Tertullian  had 
intended  to  hear  witness  to  a  fact^  and  to  state  the 
usage  of  the  Church,  he  would  have  expressed  him- 
self to  this  effect :  "  In  certain  cases  even  laymen 
have  a  right  to  give  it ;  for,  in  cases  of  necessity, 
their  ministration  is  allowed  by  the  Church,  and  their 
acts  are  ratified  by  the  Bishop  V  He,  however,  no- 
where  asserts  any  such  thing,  but   gives  for  this 

*  Works,  X.  p,  109.  t  Ibid. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  41 

alleged  right  of  laymen  to  baptize,  reasons  of  his 
own  devising,  and  those  sufficiently  far-fetched. 
This  will  appear  still  more  clearly  from  the  other 
passages  relating  to  this  controversy,  which  we 
give  in  Bishop  Kaye's  language.  "  '  Do  not  suppose 
that  what  is  forbidden  to  the  Clergy  is  allowed  to 
the  Laity.  All  Christians  are  Priests,  agreeably  to 
the  words  of  St.  John  in  the  book  of  Revelation — 
"  Christ  has  made  us  a  kingdom  and  a  priesthood 
to  God  and  his  Father."  The  authority  of  the 
Church  and  its  honor,  which  derives  sanctity  from 
the  assembled  Clergy,  has  established  a  distinction 
between  the  Clergy  and  Laity.  In  places  where 
there  are  no  Clergy,  any  single  Christian  may  ex- 
ercise the  functions  of  the  Priesthood,  may  cele- 
brate the  Eucharist,  and  baptize.  But  where  three, 
though  laymen,  are  gathered  together,  there  is  a 
Church.  Every  one  lives  by  his  own  faith^  nor  is 
there  respect  of  persons  with  God  ;  since  not  the  hear- 
ers^ hut  the  doers  of  the  law  are  justified  by  God,  ac- 
cording to  the  Apostle.  If,  therefore,  you  possess 
within  yourself  the  right  of  the  Priesthood  to  be 
exercised  in  cases  of  necessity,  you  ought  also  to 
conform  yourself  to  the  rule  of  life  prescribed  to 
those  who  engage  in  the  Priesthood ;  the  rights  of 
which  you  may  be  called  to  exercise.  Do  you, 
after  contracting  a  second  marriage,  venture  to 
baptize  or  to  celebrate  the  Eucharist  1  How  much 
more  heinous  is  it  in  a  layman  who  has  contracted 


42  LAY-BAPTISM. 

a  second  marriage,  to  exercise  the  functions  of  the 
Priesthood,  when  a  second  marriage  is  deemed  a 
sufficient  ground  for  degrading  a  Priest  from  his 
order '?  But  you  will  plead  the  necessity  of  the 
case  as  an  apology  for  the  act.  The  plea  is  in- 
valid, because  you  were  not  placed  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  marrying  a  second  time.  Do  not  marry 
again,  and  you  will  not  run  the  hazard  of  being 
obliged  to  do  that  which  a  Digamist  is  not  allowed 
to  do.  It  is  the  will  of  God  that  we  should  at  all 
times  be  in  a  fit  state  to  administer  His  Sacra- 
ments, if  an  occasion  should  arise.'  vVe  are  very 
far  from  meaning  to  defend  the  soundness  of  Ter- 
tullian's  argument  in  this  passage.  We  quote  it 
because  it  is  one  of  the  passages  which  have  been 
brought  forward  to  prove  that  he  did  not  recognize 
the  distinction  between  the  Clergy  and  Laity, 
whereas  a  directly  opposite  inference  ought  to  be 
drawn."* 

Tertullian,  be  it  observed,  is  arguing  against  a 
layman's  marrying  a  second  time.  The  Monta- 
nists,  to  whom  he  now  belonged,  were  strenuous 
in  their  opposition  to  second  marriages  under  any 
and  all  circumstances  ;  and  at  that  period  of  the 
Church  such  marriages  were  very  generally  for- 
bidden to  the  Clergy.f     Tertullian  putting  together 

*  Bp.  Kaye's  Tertullian,  p.  225.  For  the  original  see 
Note  (E). 

t  This  prohibition  was  based  upon  St.  Paul's  injunction 


LAY-BAPTISM.  43 

this  fact,  and  his  own  notion  of  the  inherent  Priest- 
hood of  every  baptized  person,  frames  an  argument 
of  his  own,  by  which  he  seeks  to  extend  the  pro- 
hibition to  the  laity.  It  amounts  to  this  :  "  The 
Church  forbids  all  Priests  to  marry  a  second  time; 
but  Christ  has  made  all  Christians  Priests  (as  well 
as  Kings)':  therefore,  you  (laymen),  in  virtue  of 
your  inherentPriesthood,  are  bound  to  refrain  from 
a  second  marriage."  He  says  not  a  syllable  about 
the  Church's  recognizing  the  right  of  laymen  to 
baptize  ;  but  rather  makes  that  right  antecedent  to, 
and  independent  of,  the  Church's  action  in  the 
matter.  "Christ  has  given,"  says  he,  "the  sacer- 
dotal character  to  all  his  disciples  ;  the  Church,  it  is 
true,  has  restrained  the  ordinary  exercise  of  this  right 
to  the  Ministry;  but  the  Church  has  not  taken,  and 
cannot  take,  this  right  away;  you  have  the  charac- 
ter and  the  right  of  a  Priest,  and  you  should  there- 
fore submit  to  the  discipline  of  a  Priest,  lest  you 
unfit  yourself  for  sacerdotal  ministrations  in  cases 
of  necessity."  There  is  but  one  historical  fact  al- 
leged that  has  any  bearing  on  our  subject,  viz.,  that 
"  the  difference  between  the  order  (of  the  Minis- 
try) and  the  people  has  been  established  by  the 
authority  of  the  Church ;"  and  this  is  not  truly 
stated,  for  that  "  difference". was  established  by  the 

that  Bishops,  &c.,  should  be  "  husbands  of  one  wife,"  which 
in  TertuUian's  day  was  held  to  mean  that  they  should  never 
marry  a  second  time. 


44  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

Divine  Head  of  the  Church,  and  is  therefore  not  to 
be  done  away — no,  not  even  by  the  Church  itself. 

If  any  claim  that  Tertullian  refers  to  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Church  when  he  speaks  of  a  layman's 
baptizing  where  there  is  no  Priest ;  we  reply,  then 
does  he  in  the  same  breath  assert  the  usage  of  the 
Church,  when  he  speaks  of  a  layman's  administer- 
ing the  Holy  Communion.  In  both  cases  it  is  plain 
that  he  either  testifies  to  fact,  or  states  his  private 
opinion.  The  dilemma  is  an  awkward  one  for 
our  opponents,  and  perhaps  the  repulsive  promi- 
nence of  its  horns  may  account  for  the  fact  that 
this  passage  is  generally  passed  by,  and  the  one 
before  examined  relied  upon  alone  by  the  advo- 
cates of  Lay-Baptism.  For  surely  they  cannot  de- 
cline it  because  he  was  a  Montanist  when  he  wrote 
it  j  for  however  much  this  fact  may  impeach  his 
judgment,  it  cannot  impair  his  honesty,  nor  his 
credit  as  a  historian. 

In  a  word,  if  this  passage  proves  that  the  usage 
of  the  Church  sanctioned  Lay-Baptism  in  case  of 
necessity,  it  equally  proves  that  it  likewise  sanc- 
tioned Lay-Consecration  of  the  Eucharist.  Tertullian 
in  truth  is  fearfully  consistent  in  carrying  out  to 
its  results  his  notion  of  the  inherent  Priesthood : 
*'  You  both  administer  the  Holy  Communion*  and  bap- 

*  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  dwell  on  Mr.  Kelsall's 
explanation  of  the  word  "ofFerre"(ans-wering  to  TTQOGCpsQeiv,) 


LAY-BAPTISM.  45 

tize^  and  are  your  sole  Priest.^^  If  he  is  here  refer- 
ring historically  to  allowed  Catholic  and  Primitive 
usage  in  cases  of  necessity,  then  is  his  statement 
very  sweeping  and  comprehensive.  Let  no  one 
pretend  to  claim  a  part  of  it,  who  is  not  willing  to 
take  the  whole. 

We  have  dwelt  at  some  length  on  Tertullian's 
evidence,  because  he  is  the  first  in  point  of  time, 
and  perhaps  for  that  very  reason  the  most  mate- 
rial, of  the  witnesses  adduced  by  our  opponents. 
We  shall  pass  on  to  the  next  in  order,  after  stating 
briefly  the  conclusions  to  which  the  foregoing  ex- 
amination has  led  us. 

1.  That  Tertullian  does  sanction  Lay-Baptism, 
but  that  he  grounds  the  right  of  laymen  to  baptize 
on  a  false  and  private  interpretation  of  an  isolated 
passage  of  Scripture,  and  on  certain  conceits  and 
notions  of  his  own ;  but  not  on  the  alleged  fact  of 
Cathoiic  usage. 

2.  He  restricts  the  exercise  of  this  right  to 
cases  of  necessity  ;  "acknowledges  that  in  all  ordi- 
nary cases  the  administration  of  baptism  is  appro- 

whicli  is  rendered  above  in  its  ordinary  patristical  sense. 
He  interprets  it  (as  a  Sophomoric  philologer  might)  of  the 
*'  carrying,"  as  a  mere  messenger,  "  the  consecrated  ele- 
ments," e.  g.  to  a  sick  person.  Dr.  W.  discusses  the  matter. 
Vol,  X.  p.  112.  It  is  plain  at  a  glance,  that  Tertullian  de= 
signates  by  this  term  a  strictly  sacerdotal  act. 


46  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

priate  to  the  Clergy,  and  condemns  all  Lay-Baptism 
in  such  cases,  as  irregular  and  sinful." — Waterland. 

3,  That  Tertullian  cannot  be  cited  as  a  witness 
to  prove  that  the  Apostolic  and  Primitive  Church 
Catholic  sanctioned  Lay-Baptism  even  in  case  of  ne- 
cessity :  but  that  he  is  a  competent  witness  to  show 
that  it  did  not  authorize  suck  Baptisms  in  ordinary 
cases  ;  i.  e.,  that  it  condemns  such  Lay-Baptisms  as 
are  so  prevalent  around  us. 

The  next  witness  in  order  of  time,  and  after  the 
lapse  of  a  century,  is 

The  Synod  of  Eliberis  or  Elvira,  in  Spain,  A.D.  305. 

This  was  a  local  Synod,  composed  of  nineteen 
Bishops.  I  quote  Bingham's  account  of  its  pro- 
ceedings in  regard  to  Lay-Baptism.  "  The  Spanish 
Bishops  assembled  in  the  council  of  Eliberis,  made 
a  public  decree  about  this  matter :  they  there  ap- 
pointed, *  that  when  men  were  upon  a  voyage  at 
sea,  or  in  any  place  where  no  Church  was  near  at 
hand,  if  a  Catechumen  happened  to  be  extremely 
sick,  and  at  the  point  of  death,  that  then  any  Chris- 
tian who  had  his  own  baptism  entire,  and  was  no 
bigamist,  might  baptize  him.  [Provided  that,  if 
he  survive,  he  bring  him  to  the  Bishop,  that  his 
baptism  may  be  perfected  by  the   laying   on  of 


LAY-BAPTISM.  47 

hands.]'*  This  authority  was  not  given  to  all 
Christians  in  all  cases,  but  with  several  limitations 
and  restrictions.  1.  It  must  be  a  case  of  abso- 
lute necessity,  when  baptism  could  not  otherwise 
be  had.  2.  The  person  baptizing  must  have  his 
own  baptism  entire  j  which  Albaspiny  understands 
of  not  lapsing  after  baptism.  Vossius,  with  better 
reason,  supposes  it  to  be  opposed  to  Clinic  baptism, 
which  was  a  less  solemn  and  imperfect  baptism, 
which  made  a  man  incapable  of  holy  orders  ever 
after,  as  I  have  shown  elsewhere  from  the  ancient 
laws  of  the  Church.  And  it  was  very  often  at- 
tended with  another  defect,  which  was  the  want  of 
Confirmation  and  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  by 
imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  Bishop,  which  was 
not  ordinarily  sought  for  by  Clinics,  who  were  bap- 
tized in  haste  upon  a  death-bed.  For  thisreason 
these  Spanish  Bishops  denied  such  the  privilege  of 
baptizing  in  any  case,  whilst  they  allowed  it  to 
others*.  3.  They  require  also,  that  the  man  must 
be  no  bigamist,  because  that  also  unqualified  a 
person  for  sacred  orders.  And  it  was  their  intent, 
when  a  Priest  could  not  be  had  to  administer  bap- 
tism, only  to  authorize  such  laymen  to  do  it  as 
had  those  proper  qualifications  that  were  requisite 
to  obtain  orders,  and  so  bring  them  as  near  Priests 

*  The  words  in  brackets  are  left  out  by  Bingham.     For 
the  original  see  Note  (F). 


48  ,         LAY-BAPTISM. 

as  they  could.  This  is  the  most  probable  account 
I  can  give  at  present  of  these  limitations  ;  however, 
in  the  main  the  matter  is  indisputable,  that  they 
plainly  intended,  in  some  extraordinary  cases,  to 
give  laymen  a  license  and  authority  to  administer 
baptism,  which  could  not  then  be  said  to  be  unau- 
thorized in  Spain,  since  it  had  the  best  authority 
the  Church  could  give  it,  which  is  the  determina- 
tion and  authority  of  a  Council."* 

We  remark  upon  this  statement :  1st.  That  al- 
though, so  long  as  this  Canon  remained  in  force, 
Lay-Baptism  in  certain  cases  was  not  "unauthorized 
in  Spain^'^  the  action  of  the  Synod  throws  no  light 
upon  the  subject  we  are  examining,  viz.,  the  Catho- 
lic usage  of  the  Primitive  Church.  For  no  appeal  is 
made  in  it  to  the  alleged  historical  fact,  that  Lay- 
Baptism  was  accounted  valid^  in  case  of  necessity, 
from  the  beginning.  Indeed  had  it  been  so,  the 
Canon  was  wholly  uncalled  for  and  unmeaning ; 
unless,  as  Mr.  Kelsall  thinks,  its  object  was  "  to 
restrain  the  use  of  that  liberty"  (of  baptizing  in 
case  of  necessity)  "  to  such  alone  of  the  laity  as 
had  not  unqualified  themselves  for  holy  orders." 
But  as  Dr.  Waterland  conclusively  replies,  "  this  is 
very  wonderful,  that  men  upon  a  voyage  and  under 
great  necessities,  which  might  entitle  them  to  the 
most  favor  and  indulgence  of  any,  should  have  a 

Scholastical  Hist.  c.  I.  see.  9. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  49 

Canon  naade  on  purpose  to  abridge  them  of  a  liberty 
that  any  man  might  take  at  home.  But  waving  the 
unreasonableness  of  such  a  supposition,  *  *  the 
Canon  *  "*  upon  Mr.  K.'s  scheme  should  have  had 
quite  a  different  turn  in  the  form  of  a  prohibition^ 
as  thus :  '  Though  it  has  been  a  custom  for  laymen 
to  baptize  in  cases  of  necessity,  yet  in  this  parti- 
cular case  upon  a  voyage  we  strictly  forbid  it,  un- 
less with  these  provisos,  &c.,'  and  so  it  should 
have  been  worded  negatively^  '  JS'^on  posse  quem- 
quam,  qui  sit  bigamus,  &;c.,'  which  would,  in  my 
humble  opinion,  have  suited  much  better  with  the 
wisdom  and  accuracy  of  the  Spanish  Fathers.'''"^ 

Is  it  not  plain  that  hj  this  Canon  these  Spanish 
Bishops  gave  to  laymen  under  their  jurisdiction 
permission  to  do  what  before  they  w^ere  not  al- 
lowed to  do,  even  in  Spain  ;  and  that  therefore,  so 
far  from  giving  direct  testimony  in  favor  of  the 
validity,  o^  Lay-Baptism  in  case  of  necessity  as  a 
Catholic  rule  of  the  Primitive  Church,  it  rather 
bears  witness  indirectly  to  the  contrary  fact,  and 
helps  to  make  good  our  position  1  For,  we  repeat, 
if  the  universal  practice  of  the  Church  sanctioned 
all  Baptisms  administered  by  laymen  in  case  of 
necessity,  how  absurd  to  enact  a  Canon  authoriz- 
ing a  very  small  portion  of  this  selfsame  class  of 
Lay -Baptisms ! 

*  Works,  Vol.  X.  p.  126. 
5 


50  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

2.  "  When  we  quote  this  Canon,  it  is  no  more 
than  the  private  opinion  of  one  National  Church  ; 
and  yet,  to  make  the  best  of  it,  it  comes  not  up  to 
the  matter  in  debate,  but  is  wide  of  the  question, 
since  it  allows  no  baptism  by  laymen,  but  what  is 
authorized  by  Bishops^  done  in  extreme  necessity^ 
done  by  one  in  communion  with  the  Church,  and 
qualified  for  orders.  Here  are  no  less  than  four 
qualifying  circumstances  5  none  of  which  are  appli- 
cable to  the  pretended  baptisms  of  our  dissenters, 
about  which  we  are  disputing,  and  therefore  little 
use  can  be  made  of  this  Canon  in  the  present  con- 
troversy."* 

Optatus  of  Milevis,  a.  D.  368. 

"It  is  plain"  that  this  writer,  as  Mr.  Kelsall  al- 
leges, "  never  thought  the  Minister  was  of  the  es- 
sence of  Baptism."  But  it  is  equally  plain  that  he 
neither  speaks,  nor  pretends  to  speak,  the  language 
of  the  Church.  He  seems  to  have  gone  quite  be- 
yond Tertullian,  as  so  many  of  the  moderns  have 
done,  and  not  to  have  regarded  Baptism  as  a  Sacer- 
dotal ministration  at  all.  Speaking  of  our  Lord's 
Commission,  he  says:  "Non  dixit  Apostolis,  vos 
facite,  alii  non  faciant.  Quisquis  in  nomine  Patris 
et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti  baptizaverit,  Apostolo- 
rum  opus  implevit."    "  He  said  not  to  the  Apostles, 

*   Waterland,  X.  p.  127, 


LAY-BAPTISM.  51 

Do  you  administer  ;  let  not  others  do  it.  Whoso- 
ever shall  have  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  has  fulfilled 
the  work  of  the  Apostles."  This  is  going  all 
lengths,  even  to  Rome  itself;  for  as  Dr.  Waterland 
observes,  "  Optatus's  reasoning  would  necessarily 
imply,  not  only  that  Lay-Baptism,  even  by  women, 
by  Jews,  Turks  and  Pagans,  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity^  is  valid^  but  that  it  is  lawful  too  ;  since  he 
supposes  that  by  the  Institution  of  Baptism  any 
man  has  an  equal  right  to  administer  it,  as  being 
not  excluded  by  Christ  from  doing  it."*  No  Church- 
man pretends  that  the  Primitive  Church  held  any 
such  doctrine.  Every  Churchman,  therefore,  will 
allow  that  he  spoke  herein  his  private  opinion. 
And  with  mere  private  opinions  we  have  nothing 
to  do. 

St.  Jerome,  A.  D.  384. 

"  Great  dispute  has  been  about  the  sense  and 
meaning  of  St.  Jerome  in  relation  to  the  present 
controversy  ;  both  sides  contending  that  he  is  ex- 
pressly for  them,  and  both  having  something  very 
plausible  to  urge  for  their  respective  opinions.  I 
have  considered  this  matter  very  carefully,  and 
shall  state  it  very  fairly  and  impartially,  as  far  as  I 
am  able  to  judge  of  it,  and  perhaps  in  conclusion 

*  Waterlandj  X,  p.  136. 


52 


LAY -BAPTISM. 


Mr.  K.  himself  will  have  no  reason  to  complain  of 
me.  His  dialogue  against  the  Luciferians  is  what 
we  are  to  examine.  The  Luciferians,  as  is  well 
known,  so  called  from  Lucifer,  Bishop  of  Caralis 
(now  Cagliari  in  Sardinia),  the  head  of  the  schism, 
separated  from  the  Catholic  Church,  because  they 
(the  Catholics)  had  received  the  Arian  Bishops  ; 
yet  they  scrupled  not  to  receive  the  Arian  laymen 
to  communion.  St.  Jerome  undertakes  to  confute 
them  upon  their  own  principles,  by  showing  them 
how  inconsistent  they  were  in  rejecting  the  Bish- 
ops, and  yet  receiving  the  laics,  and  how  they  must 
upon  their  own  principles  either  be  obliged  to  re- 
ceive or  reject  both.  The  Luciferians  pretended 
that  the  Arian  Bishops  w^ere  by  their  heresy  and 
crimes  utterly  disabled  from  acting  in  sacris  to 
any  purpose;  that  their  ministrations  w^ere  ineffec- 
tual, their  light  extinguished,  their  powers  deleted  ; 
in  a  word,  they  unbishoped  them.  St.  Jerome 
confutes  their  pretences  by  this  single  argument  ; 
that  since  they  allowed  their  Baptisms,  they  must 
of  consequence  admit  of  their  other  sacerdotal 
ministrations  as  effectual  and  valid,  and  therefore 
own  their  character  not  to  be  extinct,  nor  their  sa- 
cerdotal powers  deleted.  The  most  remarkable 
words  of  the  Dialogue  to  this  purpose  are  the  fol- 
lowing :*" 

*  Waterland  X.  p.  143. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  53 

"  Wherefore,  I  pray  you,  either  grant  the  lib- 
erty of  ministering  in  sacred  things  to  him,  whose 
Baptism  you  approve  ;  or  condemn  his  Baptism, 
whom  you  do  not  regard  as  a  Priest." 

"If  the  Arian  baptizes,  then  he  is  a  Bishop  :  if 
he  does  not  baptize,  then  do  you  reject  the  laic, 
and  I  will  not  receive  the  Priest." 

"  You  acknowledge  him  to  be  a  Bishop,  because 
you  receive  one  who  has  been  baptized  by  him. 
He  (the  laic)  is  no  Christian,  if  he  had  no  Priest 
to  make  him  a  Christian."* 

Here  St.  Jerome  al^eo-es  that  the  acknowledcr- 
ment  of  the  validity  of  any  given  Baptism,  implies 
of  necessity  the  validity  of  his  ordination  who  con- 
ferred it ;  which  would  be  absurd,  if  Lay-Baptism 
were  valid.  In  other  words,  he  holds  that  Bap- 
tism is  strictly  and  truly  a  sacerdotal  ministration  ; 
if  "no  Priest,"  then,  as  a  necessary  consequence, 
"  no  Christian."  Accordingly,  says  Dr.  AV.,  "  from 
these  words,  and  from  the  whole  scope  and  drift  of 
St.  Jerome's  argument.  Dr.  Forbes  and  Mr.  Reeves, 
and  after  them  Dr.  Brett  and  Mr.  Lawrence,  thought 
it  reasonable  to  assert,,  that  the  invalidity  of  Lay- 
Baptism  was  the  undoubted  principle  upon  which 
the  orthodox  confuted  the  Luciferians  in  St.  Je- 
rome's times.  *  *  *  St.  Jerome  seems  plainly  to 
suppose  a  reciprocal  connection  between  the  va- 

*  For  the  original,  see  Note  (G). 
5* 


54  '         LAY-BAPTISM. 

lidity  of  Baptism,  and  the  validity  of  the  Orders  of 
the  Baptizer."* 

Had  St.  Jerome  always  written  in  perfect  keep- 
ing with  the  passages  above  quoted,  he  would  be  a 
decisive  witness  against  the  validity  of  Lay-Bap- 
tism under  any  and  all  circumstances.  But  there 
is  a  passage  in  this  very  Dialogue,  wdiich  must  be 
taken  as  a  limitation  of  the  foregoing  extracts. 
*' Without  the  unction  and  order  of  the  Bishop, 
neither  Presbyter  nor  Deacon  has  the  right  of  bap- 
tizing. Which  we  know  is  also  allowed  to  laymen, 
provided  always  necessity  constrain  them.  For 
as  one  receives  it,  so  he  can  also  give  zV."f  On  which 
Dr.  W.  remarks  :  "  A  very  wise  reason  !  I  hope 
the  Church  had  a  better,  if  that  were  her  practice." 
And  then  with  that  ingenuousness  (always  natural  to 
an  honest  man)  which  the  consciousness  of  a  good 
cause  makes  doubly  easy,  he  proceeds  thus : 
"However,  I  will  not  say,  with  Dr.  Brett  and  Mr. 
Lawrence,  that  this  was  a  slip  of  his  pen,  and  in- 
consistent with  the  rest  of  the  Dialogue.  I  will 
suppose  that  the  practice  of  Lay-Baptism  in  cases 
of  necessity  had  got  some  footing  in  the  Latin 
Church  about  his  time.  But  then  I  say  it  was  by 
the  permission  of  the  Bishops,  whenever  it  was, 
and  was  not  unauthorized  Lay-Baptism,  nor  was 
any  such  permitted  in  ordinary  cases,  nor  allowed 

»  Works,  X.  p.  144.  f  See  Note  (H). 


LAY-BAPTISM.  55 

to  be  valid.  And  so  to  make  St.  Jerome  coherent 
and  consistent,  he  might  perhaps  think  Lay-Bap- 
tism unauthorized,  and  in  ordinary  cases  invalid  j 
and  yet  allow  of  the  validity  of  authorized  Lay- 
Baptism  in  cases  extraordinary.  Or  else,  he  might 
think  that  the  sacerdotium  laici^  which  he  speaks 
of,  might  take  place  in  such  circumstances,  and 
consistently  enough  allow  laymen,  when  necessity 
makes  them  Priests,  as  he  seems  to  imagine,  to 
execute  the  Priestly  function."* 

In  concluding  this  case  of  St.  Jerome,  be  it  ob- 
served : 

1.  That  in  the  first  passages  cited,  he  holds 
Catholic  language,  and  unintentionally  bears  wit- 
ness to  the  Catholic  rule  of  the  invalidity  of  Lay- 
Baptism  under  any  and  all  circumstances  ;  inasmuch 
as  he  inseparably  connects  true  and  valid  Baptism 
with  a  true  and  valid  Ordination. 

2. *That  in  the  second  passage  he  states  an  un- 
Catholic  and  novel  doctrine  (authorizing  Lay-Bap- 
tism in  certain  cases),  which  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  fourth  century  was  gradually  extending  itself  in 
the  Western  Church.  We  shall  elsewhere  endeavor 
to  point  out  its  source,  and  to  trace  its  further  de- 
velopment, until  it  attained  its  full  growth  under 
Papal  auspices. 

3.  That  he,  after  all,  reprobates  all  such  Lay- 
Baptisms  as  we  have  to  do  with. 

*  Works,  X.  p.  145. 


56  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

St.  Austin,  A.  D.  400. 

This  Father  goes  beyond  St.  Jerome  in  justify- 
ing Lay-Baptism.  He  was  engaged  in  a  long  and 
fierce  controversy  with  the  schismatical  Donatists, 
who  had  separated  themselves  from  the  Church  in 
Africa,  and  had  organized  themselves  into  a  sepa- 
rate communion  ;  because  the  Bishops  of  the  Af- 
rican Province  had  in  the  first  place  consecrated 
as  Bishop  of  Carthage  Caecilianus,  whose  conse- 
cration they  (the  Donatists)  held  to  be  null  and 
void  by  reason  of  the  personal  unworthiness,  both 
of  himself  and  of  his  Consecrator  ;  and  because,  in 
the  second  place,  they  had  kept  up  communion 
with  him,  notwithstanding  the  formal  protest  of 
the  malcontent  Bishops,  who  were  chiefly  from 
Numidia.  Africa  thus  contained  two  numerous 
bodies  of  Christians,  both  regularly  organized  un- 
der lawfully  ordained  Bishops  ;  each  charging  the 
other  with  schism  (and  finally  with  heresy  too), 
and  claiming  for  itself  alone  the  rightful  title  of  the 
Church  of  God.  There  was,  however,  this  difl^er- 
ence  between  them  :  the  Catholics  readmitted 
penitent  and  returning  Donatists  to  communion, 
after  penance  only,  without  re-baptization  5  in  obe- 
dience to  the  Catholic  rule  (sanctioned  by  the 
First  General  Council  at  Nice),  that  neither  here- 
sies nor  schism  nulled  Orders,  and  that  therefore 
Baptisms  conferred  by  heretical  or  schismatical 


LAY-BAPTISM.  57 

clergy  were  valid  and  not  to  be  repeated.  The 
Donatists,  on  the  other  hand,  re-baptized  all  prose- 
lytes whom  they  gained  over  from  the  Catholic 
communion  j  because  they  perversely  held  that 
the  Orders  of  the  Catholic  Bishops  and  Clergy 
%vere  null  and  void,  and  consequently  that  their 
Baptisms  were  necessarily  null  and  void.  Their 
premises  were  wrong  ;  their  conclusion  was  logical 
and  just,  albeit  un-Catholic  and  untrue. 

St.  Austin,  assailing  them  on  this  point,  first 
attacks  their  premises  and  demonstrates  their  fal- 
sity, and  their  departure  from  Catholic  usage  and 
doctrine.  This  he  does  by  showing  that  "  the 
Catholic  Church  always  thought  that  Orders  once 
truly  given  could  never  be  deleted  by  any  heresy 
or  schism,  or  indeed  by  any  thing.  And  here  he 
observes,  that  if  any  of  the  heretical  or  schismati- 
cal  Clergy  upon  their  return  to  the  Church  were 
allowed  to  officiate  again  as  Clergy,  they  were  ad- 
mitted without  any  new  ordination  ;  a  plain  argu- 
ment that  heresy  or  schism  had  not  deleted  their 
Orders.  Nay,  he  observes  further,  that  though 
they  were  often  not  allowed  to  officiate,  but  only 
admitted  to  lay-communion,  yet  even  then  they 
were  not  looked  upon  as  laymen,  and  therefore 
did  not  submit  to  penance  and  receive  imposition 
of  hands,  which  was  the  usual  discipline  for  re- 
turning laics.  *  *  To  this  answer,  though  full, 
plain  and  unexceptionable,  and  agreeable  to  the 


58  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

known  rules  and  practice  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
he  suhioins  another  of  his  own,  with  great  diffidence 
and  modesty." 

"  He  denies  the  consequence,  that  Baptism 
must  necessarily  be  null  upon  supposition  that 
heresy  or  schism  did  vacate  Orders  ;  and  he  brings 
it  in  by  the  by,  and  ex  ahunda?iti.^^  '^  Although,  even 
if  a  laj^man,  constrained  by  necessity,  have  given 
Baptism  to  one  perishing,  seeing  that  he  learned 
how  it  ought  to  be  given,  when  he  received  it  him- 
self, I  am  inclined  to  think  no  one  can  piously  say, 
that  it  ought  to  be  repeated.  For,  if  it  be  done 
without  any  necessity,  it  is  an  usurpation  of  an- 
other's office  ;  but  if  necessity  compel,  it  is  either 
no  fault,  or  a  venial  one."* 

"Does  this  look"  (continues  Dr.  Waterland) 
"  as  if  Lay-Baptism,  even  in  cases  of  necessity, 
was  a  customary  practice  in  the  Church  of  his 
time  %  Would  he  have  spoke  with  such  diffi- 
dence, "  ?iescio  an  pie  ?"  Would  not  he  rather 
have  urged  the  authority  and  custom  of  the  Church, 
as  in  the  case  before  mentioned,  and  have  said,  in- 
stead of  "  nescio  anpie,''  certe  impie  or  temere  1  But 
he  is  here  offering  his  own  private  conjecture  in  a 
case  that  had  not  been  expressly  determined  by  any 
Council,  though  the  reason  of  the  thing,  and  the 
custom  of  the  Church,  were  sufficiently  against 
him.     He  has  neither  rule  nor  instance  to  plead  in 

♦  Note  (I). 


LAY-BAPTISM.  59 

his  behalf,  and  therefore  endeavors  to  supply  that 
want  by  his  own  private  reason ;  and  so  he  goes 
on  to  give  his  opinion,  that  Lay-Baptism  may  be 
valid  even  in  ordinary  cases,  though  irregular  and 
sinful  upon  this  principle,  quod  datum  fuerit,  non 
potest  did  non  datum  ("  what  has  been  given,  can- 
not be  said  not  to  have  been  given")  j  which  is 
either  begging  the  question,  or  arguing  thus  :  A 
person  is  washed  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity ;  there- 
fore he  is  haptized.  After  he  had  wandered  a 
while  in  the  dark  about  this  question,  indulging 
too  far  his  own  private  conjectures,  he  returns  at 
length  to  his  first  answer,  as  being  more  just  and 
solid,  and  abides  by  it;  insisting  again  upon  it, 
that  heretical  or  schismatical  Clergy  had  not  lost 
their  Orders  ;  and  he  appeals  to  the  decision  of  the 
whole  Christian  world  in  proof  of  his  assertion  ; 
and  so  goes  on  triumphantly  on  that  point  to  the 
end  of'the  chapter."  *  *  * 

"It  may  be  observed  of  St.  Austin,  that  though 
at  first  in  his  disputes  with  the  Donatists  he  was 
very  modest  and  diffident  in  proposing  any  of 
his  own  private  conjectures,  keeping  close  for  the 
most  part  to  the  known  rules  and  principles  of  the 
Church  ;  yet  afterwards,  in  the  progress  of  the 
dispute,  as  men  are  apt  (especially  when  flushed 
with  victory)  to  grow  both  warmer  and  bolder,  he 
ventured  to  proceed  further,  and  to  lay  it  down  for 
a  maxim,  that  any  Baptism  was  good,  by  whomso- 


60  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

ever  administered  in  the  form  of  words,  in  the 
name  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  This  was 
a  short  and  easy  solution  for  any  difficulty  ;  and 
were  it  as  solid  too,  would  justify  all  the  lengths  of 
Poperj?-  in  the  matter  of  Baptism  ;  would  not  only 
prove  that  heretics  or  schismatics,  whether  of  the 
Clergy  or  Laity,  may  validly  baptize ;  but  that 
women  and  children,  and  even  Jews,  Turks  and 
Pagans,  either  seriously  or  in  sport  and  mockery, 
may  administer  true  Baptism."* 

The  foregoing  part  of  the  argument,  which  is 
based  upon  St.  Austin's  own  writings,  seemed  to 
merit  a  full  discussion,  especially  as  this  Father 
has  the  honor,  whatever  it  be  (as  I  shall  attempt 
to  show  in  a  subsequent  chapter),  of  giving  Lay- 
Baptism  such  firm  root  in  the  Western  Church, 
that  it  has  grown  and  spread  until  it  has  quite  over- 
shadowed that  Sacerdotal  Baptism,  for  which  alone 
we  claim  validity,  as  well  as  legality.  There  are 
two  passages,  quoted  by  Binghamf  from  Gratian,  as 
St.  Austin's,  which  must  be  briefly  noticed,  as  that 
learned  writer  lays  much  stress  upon  them  in  fa- 
vor of  Lay-Baptism. 

"  In  case  of  necessity,  when  neither  Bishops  nor 
Presbyters,  nor  any  of  the  (lawful)  Ministers  (of 
Baptism)  can  be  found,  and  the  danger  of  the  can- 

*  Waterland's  Works,  X.  p.  147,  ss. 
t  Schol.  Hist.  c.  I.  sect.  1. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  61 

didate  is  pressing,  lest  he  should  depart  this  life 
without  that  Sacrament  (Baptism),  we  are  used  to 
hear  that  even  laics  are  wont  to  give  the  Sacra- 
ment, which  they  have  received."*  Nothing  can 
be  more  obvious  than  that  St.  Austin  is  here  speak- 
ing, not  of  the  custom  of  the  Church  Catholic,  but 
of  an  unauthorized  TpYactice,  vjh'wh  was  winked  at 
by  those  in  authorit^r,  and  was  thereby  gaining 
ground.  For  had  he  spoken  of  an  allowed  and  Cath- 
olic usage,  he  would  surely  not  have  spoken  of  it 
as  a  matter  of  hearsay  ("  we  are  used  to  hear"), 
but  of  certain  knowledge,  on  his  part. 

Once  more  :  "  That  Baptism  is  valid  of  itself, 
which  has  been  given  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  Provided 
that  there  be  also  in  the  same  Sacrament  the  au- 
thority of  the  Commission  conveyed  through  our 
Lord  to  the  Apostles  j  but  through  them  to  the 
Bishops  and  the  other  Priests;  or  even  to  Chris- 
tian laics,  who  come  from  the  same  stock  and  ori- 
gin."! In  this  passage  there  is  not  a  word  about 
the  usage  of  the  Church  ;  it  is  St.  Austin's  ipse 
dixit.  It  is,  besides,  positively  adverse  to  the  Lay- 
Baptisms,  which  we  are  chiefly  concerned  with, 
since  it  limits  the  power  of  baptizing  to  those  lay- 
men who  are  in  the  Communion  of  the  Church 
("  Christian  laics  who  come  from  the  same  stock 

«  Note  (K),  t  Note  (L). 


62  ,  LAY-BAPTISM. 

and  origin")  and  whose  acts  are  authorized  by  the 
Bishops  :  in  other  words,  it  brings  such  acts  with- 
in the  scope  of  the  Commission. 

In  regard  to  this  witness  we  claim  : 

1.  That  in  his  controversy  with  the  Donatists, 
his  main  argument  recognizes  and  confirms  our 
position,  that  the  validity  of  Baptism  is  inseparably 
connected  with,  and  absolutely  dependent  upon, 
the  validity  of  the  Administrator's  Orders. 

2.  That  he  nowhere  says,  directly  or  indirectly, 
that  Lay-Baptism,  in  any  case  whatsoever,  had  re- 
ceived the  sanction  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

3.  That  the  principles,  upon  which  he  bases 
his  private  opinion  in  favor  of  Lay-Baptism,  if 
carried  out  to  their  legitimate  and  necessary  re- 
sults, prove  so  much,  that  they  utterly  subvert 
other  indisputable  Catholic  principles  and  verities, 
everywhere  recognized  by  St.  Austin  himself  j  and 
would  endanger  the  Ministry,  the  Sacraments,  and 
the  Church  of  God  itself,  by  "  dissolving  all  rule 
and  order  in  the  Church}"  "frustrating  Christ's 
commission  to  his  Apostles,  and  melting  down  all 
distinction  between  Clergy  and  Laity."  Conse- 
quently that  the  doctrine  of  the  validity  of  Lay- 
Baptism,  which  he  builds  on  such  a  foundation, 
was  an  erroneous  private  opinion^  although  counte- 
nanced by  the  jprzm^e  judgment  of  other  individ- 
ual Doctors,  e.  g.,  Tertullian,  Optatus,  and  Je- 
rome. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  63 

All  the  principal  witnesses  summoned  in  favor 
of  Lay-Baptism  from  the  Primitive  Church,  down 
to  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  have  now 
been  examined.  And  here  this  chapter  would  be 
brought  to  a  close,  were  it  not  that  our  opponents 
might  charge  us  either  with  ignorance  of  their 
claim  to  other  additional  evidence,  or  with  ina- 
bility to  set  it  aside.  We  shall  therefore  very 
briefly  examine  it,  though  we  deem  this  wholly  a 
work  of  supererogation. 

First  in  order  then  comes  Novatian's  Baptism, 
of  which  Archbishop  Potter  {clarum  et  venerabile 
nomen)  thus  writes :  "  One  remarkable  instance 
(of  Lay-Baptism)  we  find  in  the  Church  of  Rome, 
where  Novatian,  being  in  danger  of  death,  was 
baptized  in  his  bed  by  the  exorcists,  who  were 
an  order  of  Ministers  below  Deacons,  and  con- 
sequently had  no  greater  share  of  spiritual  au- 
thority than  mere  laymen.  Which  Baptism  was 
so  fully  approved  of  by  the  Bishop  and  Church 
of  Rome,  that  Novatian  was  afterwards  ordained 
Presbyter.  Indeed  there  was  then  a  Canon,  where- 
by men,  who  had  been  baptized  in  their  sick 
beds,  were  denied  admission  into  orders ;  but  this 
had  no  relation  to  the  persons  by  whom  Baptism 
was  administered  on  such  occasions,  but  only  to 
the  backwardness  or  negligence  of  the  person  who 
deferred  his  Baptism  to  the  last  extremity  (Euse- 
hius  Eccl.  Hist.  L.  VI.  C.  43).     So  that  this  Bap- 


64  '  LAY -BAPTISM. 

tism  of  Novatian  is  a  full  evidence  of  the  practice 
and  opinion  of  the  Church  of  this  age."* 

I  think  that  any  one  who  will  attentively  exam- 
ine the  original  text  of  Eusebius  in  the  passage 
above  referred  to  will  agree  with  me,  that  the  Ex- 
orcisis,  whom  the  Archbishop  regards  as  the  ad- 
ministrators of  the  Baptism,  were  merely  instru- 
mental in  procuring  Novatian's  Baptism,  either  by 
persuading  and  preparing  him  to  receive  it,  or  by 
securing  the  agency  of  a  lawful  Minister,  or  both. 
Clinic  Baptism  (such  as  Novatian  received)  was, 
by  the  Canon,  a  disqualification  for  orders,  even 
when  administered  by  a  Priest.  If  Novatian's  Bap- 
tism, then,  besides  being  irregular  and  defective  in 
this  respect,  had  labored  under  the  additional 
irregularity  and  defect  of  having  been  adwAnistered 
by  a  layman,  it  can  hardly  be  possible  that  his  Bish- 
op, however  lenient,  would  have  ordained  him. — 
Or,  admitting  that  he  had,  it  is  certain  that  his 
enemies  would  have  reproached  him  with  the  latter 
defect  in  his  Baptism,  as  they  are  known  to  have 
cast  the  former  in  his  teeth.  I  doubt  not  that  No- 
vatian's Baptism  was  regular  as  respects  the  admin- 
istration. The  co7itrary,  at  least,  can  never  he  proved; 
and  assuredly  that  ought  to  be  a  very  clear  case, 
which  claims  to  be  allowed  as  "  a  full  evidence  of 

^  Discourse  on  Church.  Government,  Philad.  ed.  p.  232. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  65 

the  practice  and  opinion  of  the  Church  of  this 
age."* 

Next  in  order  we  have  what  Bingham  calls  "  the 
determination  in  the  Church  of  Alexandria." 

Were  not  even  the  trifling  of  great  men  a  seri- 
ous matter,  it  would  be  hard  to  treat  this  case 
gravely,  as  Bingham  does.  To  make  a  long  story- 
short,  it  is  said  that  Athanasius,  when  a  boy,  bap- 
tized some  of  his  playmates  in  sport,  using  however 
the  prescribed  element  ^r\di  formula  ;  and  that  Alex- 
ander, then  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  having  witnessed 
the  transaction  at  a  distance,  ascertained  the  facts 
of  the  case,  and  "  after  he  had  conferred  with  a 
council  of  his  clergy,  he  is  said  to  have  determined, 
that  the  Baptism  of  those  on  whom  water  had  been 
poured,  with  the  proper  interrogatories  and  res- 
ponses, ought  not  to  be  repeated,  but  only  have 
those  things  added  which  the  Priests  were  used  to 
perform."!  Now  if  this  is  Baptism,  it  behooves  us 
all  to  be  on  our  guard,  lest  we  be  ^Tza-Baptists 
without  knowing  it !  I  would  let  the  story  pass 
for  Vv'hat  it  is  worth,  so  far  as  our  argument  is  con- 
cerned ;  but  I  would  say  a  word  to  vindicate  the 
fair  fame  of  the  good  Bishop  of  Alexandria.  Note 
then  the  rise  of  the  story.     KulRnus,  its  first  relator, 


*  See  note  (M)  for  the  passage  of  Eusebius  both  in  Greek 
and  English ;  and  for  Mr.  Bennett's  judgment  on  the  case, 
t  Scholast.  Hist.,  c.  I.  sect.  10. 

6* 


66  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

says  (I  quote  Bingham),  that  "  he  had  the  story 
from  the  mouth  of  those  who  lived  and  conversed 
with  Athanasius  :"  i.  e.  Ruffinus  says^  that  somebody 
said  to  him^  &c.  Most  notable  attestation,  truly,  of 
a  most  marvellous  case  !  To  make  its  credibility  un- 
questionable, take  the  character  of  Kuffinus  as  an 
historian  from  Dr.  Cave,  who  pronounces  him  "very 
credulous,"  "  too  ready  to  listen  to  fables,  and  to  the 
vague  rumors  of  the  rabble,  which  he  was  wont  to 
pick  up  in  the  streets  and  barbers'  shops,  and  com- 
mit hap-hazard  to  writing."* 

Here  no  doubt  we  have  the  real  parentage  of 
the  veracious  "fable"  or  "rumor,"  which  is  made 
to  counterfeit  the  voice  of  the  Church.  No  doubt 
"  those  who  lived  and  conversed  with  Athanasius," 
and  from  u^hose  "mouth"  Ruffinus  had  this  story, 
belonged  to  that  "rabble,"  with  whom  he  convers- 
ed "  in  the  streets  and  barbers'  shops"  to  gather 
materials  for  history  !  'Tis  a  lame  cause  surely  that 
seeks  such  a  prop. 

The  next  remaining  witness  is  the  Pseudo- 
Ambrose,  probably  Hilary  the  Roman  Deacon, 
about  A.  D.  355. 

"  He  (says  Mr.  Kelsall),  contrary  to  the  sense 
of  Calvin  and  other  moderns,  supposes  the  offices 
of  baptizing  and  preaching  separable,  though  they 
are  both  joined  together  in  the  Commission.     And 

*  For  the  original,  see  Note  (N).. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  67 

he  quotes  in  proof,  "  Non  omnis  qui  baptizat  ido- 
neus  est  et  evangelizare  ;"  i.  e.  "  every  man  who 
baptizes  is  not  fit  to  preach  ;"  or,  in  other  words, 
"  a  man  may  be  a  lawful  Priest,  and  yet  a  bad 
preacher :"  which  is  as  undeniably  true  in  fact,  as 
it  is  irrelevant  to  the  question. 

He  quotes  another  passage  from  the  same  au- 
thor,* and  remarks  upon  it  as  follows.  "  He  tells  us 
that  at  first,  for  the  swifter  propagation  of  the  Gos- 
pel, leave  was  given  to  all  promiscuously  to  teach, 
baptize,  and  explain  the  Scriptures."  *  *  *  "  He 
does  indeed,  a  little  after,  say,  that  this  large  Com- 
mission was  withdrawn,  when  the  circumstances 
of  the  Church  made  it  no  longer  necessary :  '  Hinc 
ergo  est,  unde  nunc  neque  diaeoni  in  populo 
praedicant,  neque  clerici  vel  laici  baptizant  j'  i. 
e.  '  hence  it  comes  to  pass,  that  neither  do  the 
deacons  preach  in  public,  nor  do  the  inferior 
clergy,  (viz.  sub-deacons,  &c.)  or  the  laymen  ad- 
minister Baptism.'  " — Now,  in  the  first  place,  this 
writer  puts  I  ay -preaching  and  lay-baptizing  both  on 
the  same  original  footing  under  the  Commission, 
and  makes  both  equally  lawful  and  regular  as  well 
as  valid  ;  and  ascribes  their  irregularity  and  ille- 
gality  in  his  own  day  wholly  to  a  Canonical  re- 
striction of  our  Lord's  Commission. 

2.  "  Though  this  author  is  something  mistaken 

*  See  the  whole  passage  in  Note  (0). 


68  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

in  his  chronology  (not  fixing  the  distinction  of 
clergy  and  laity  early  enough),  yet  he  reasons  very 
right  ;  that  after  proper  officers  were  once  appoint- 
ed, none  should  dare  usurp  upon  the  sacred  inclo- 
sure.  And  it  is  worth  observing  what  he  adds  j — 
"  Jfeque  clerici  vel  laid  ha'ptizant^''  "  nor  do  the  in- 
ferior clergy  nor  laymen  baptize."  He  may  be  a 
good  witness  of  what  was  done  in  his  own  time, 
though  a  bad  reasoner  about  the  practice  of  the 
Apostles."* 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  A.  D.  370. 

Mr.  Kelsall,  by  detaching  a  sentence  of  this 
Father  from  the  context,  makes  him  advise  his 
Catechumens  not  to  be  too  particular  what  sort  of 
a  layman  they  received  Baptism  from,  supposing 
them  driven  to  the  necessity  of  submitting  to  Lay- 
Baptism.  Dr.  Waterland,  by  quoting  the  passage  in 
its  just  connection,  makes  Mr.  K.'s  perversion 
palpable.  St.  Gregory  was  in  fact  advising  his 
Catechumens  not  to  be  "fanciful  or  curious"  about 
the  dignity  or  ^personal  merit  of  the  Friest^  who 
should  baptize  them.  For  a  full  exhibition  of  the 
case,  see  Waterland^  Vol.  X.  jp,  149,  ss, 

Epiphanius. 
"  As  for   Epiphanius"    (says  Hooker),!   "he 

*  Waterland,  X.  p.  133. 

t  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  vol.  V.  c.  61,  §  3. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  69 

striketh  on  the  very  selfsame  anvil  with  Tertullian." 
If  so,  let  him  hammer  away  to  his  heart's  content, 
for  he  will  forge,  at  best,  a  mere  hrutum  fulmen  ; 
and  will  make  nothing  more  than  noise,  to  con- 
found either  us  or  our  readers. 

We  have  now  examined  all  the  evidence  from 
the  first  four  centuries,  whether  derived  from  the 
testimony  of  Fathers  or  Councils,  which  has  been 
adduced  by  the  leading  advocates  of  Lay-Baptism 
in  its  favor.  In  summing  up  the  evidence,  we 
claim  to  have  shown  in  the  course  of  the  examina- 
tion, 

1.  That  the  demand  made  upon  our  opponents 
in  this  controversy,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  preced- 
ing chapter,  has  not  been  met  by  them^  their  profes- 
sions and  promises  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 
For  not  even  one  of  their  witnesses  testifies  that  the 
Catholic  usage  of  the  Primitive  Chuech  sanctions 
Lay-Baptism  in  any  case  whatsoever.  On  the  con- 
trary, all  who  defend  the  practice,  ground  it  wholly 
either  on  some  private  and  erroneous  conceit,  not 
known  by  the  Church  (e.  g.  Tertullian  on  the  inhe- 
rent Priesthood  of  every  man)  ;  or  else  they  beg 
the  question,  maintaining,  for  example,  that  wash- 
ings in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  by  whomsoever 
done,  and  under  whatever  circumstances,  is  Bap- 
tism. 

2.  That  the  sole  instance  of  Canonical  authority 
in  favor  of  Lay-Baptism,  is  that  of  a  local  Synod  at 


70  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

Eliberis,  whose  action,  so  far  from  representing 
that  of  the  Church  at  large,  does  plainly  imply  that 
the  previous  and  general  usage  of  the  Church  was 
directly  contrary  to  it. 

3.  That  nothing  like  usage  favorable  to  Lay- 
Baptism  is  to  be  found  until  the  latter  part  of  the 
fourth  century  ;  and  that  then  it  was  only  gaining 
ground  by  force  of  individual  practice  or  allowance, 
without  any  formal  Ecclesiastical  sanction  /  and  was 
wholly  confined  to  the  Western  Church,  where  it 
grew  out  of  local  errors  (as  shall  be  more  fully 
shown  hereafter). 

4.  That  whatever  sanction  either  individual  au- 
thority or  local  usage  may  have  given  to  Lay-Bap- 
tisms, under  certain  circumstances  (when  admin- 
istered in  case  of  extreme  necessity^  or  by  laymen 
having  the  qualifications  requisite  for  Orders^  c^c), 
no  countenance  is  given  by  antiquity  to  such  Lay- 
Baptisms,  as  some  among  us  would  fain  ratify  ex 
post  facto  ^  if  not  legalize  a  priori. 

And  here  we  might  safely  and  fairly  rest  our 
case,  having  shown  affirmatively  that  our  Saviour 
and  his  Apostles  confined,  as  a  general  rule,  the  right 
of  administering  Holy  Baptism  to  lawfully  ordained 
Ministers,  having  sacerdotal  character  and  power  j 
and  that  the  Nature  of  the  Sacrament  itself  pre- 
sumes and  requires  such  ministration:  and  having 
also  further  demonstrated  (as  we  trust)  negative- 
ly, that  the  exception  which  our  opponents  allege 


LAY-BAPTISJI.  71 

to  that  rule,  has  not,  on  their  own  showing,  the 
evidence  in  its  favor,  which  can  alone  entitle  it  to 
our  recognition  and  adoption.  But  we  are  willing 
to  go  farther,  for  the  full  satisfaction  of  the  scru- 
pulous 5  and  shall  therefore  attempt  to  prove  in  the 
next  chapter  that  the  testimony  of  Primitive  Anti- 
quity, both  directly  and  indirectly,  confirms  our 
position  against  the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism. 


72  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

The  Catholic  Doctrine  and  Usage  of  the  Primitive 
Church  positively  confirm  the  Arguments  of  Chap- 
ters II.  and  III. 

We  undertake  in  this  chapter  to  prove  that  the 
Catholic  doctrine  and  usage  of  the  Primitive  Church 
positively  confirm  the  Argument  of  Chapters  II.  and 
III. ;  or,  in  other  words,  make  against  the  valid- 
ity^ as  well  as  legality,  of  Lay-Baptism.  We  do  not 
mean  by  this  that  the  practice  of  Lay-Baptism  is 
expressly  condemned  in  formal  enactments  of  Sy- 
nods and  Councils,  or  in  the  solemn  protests  of  the 
Fathers  in  general.  It  were  equally  absurd  to  re- 
quire or  offer  such  proof  against  it.  For  we  have 
already  seen  that  no  such  thing  was  even  thought  of 
until  Tertullian' s  time,  or  for  the  space  of  two  whole 
centuries  ;  and  that  he  does  not  speak  of  or  justify 
the  practice,  but  merely  theorizes  about  the  abstract 
right  or  power  of  the  laity  in  the  matter.  JVbr  is 
a  single  well  authenticated  instance,  either  of  the  prac- 
tice of  Lay-Baptism,  or  of  its  allowance,  adduced  pjrior 
to  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  Had  the  early 
Fathers  then  attacked  Lay-Baptism,  they  would 
have  deserved  commendation  for  Quixotic  chiv- 
alry, rather  than  for  sober  and  well-directed  cour- 
age.     They   would  in    fact    have   set  up  a  man 


LAY-BAPTISM.  73 

of  straw  to  do  battle  with.  And  even  towards  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century  the  use  of  Lay-Baptism 
was  only  occasional^  as  well  as  local ;  so  that  it 
caused  little  notice,  until  it  had  become  prevalent 
under  the  sanction  of  St.  Austin,  whose  dictatorial 
authority  in  the  Western  Church  at  length  fastened 
this  error,  as  well  as  others,  npon  his  servile  fol- 
lowers, for  many  generations. 

But  although  it  is  plainly  as  impossible  to  show, 
that  the  ancients  condemned  Lay-Baptism  in  terms^ 
as  it  is  to  prove  that  they  expressly  forbad  the 
blocking  up  the  track  of  a  railroad,  and  for  the 
selfsame  reason  j  still  it  is  easy  to  demonstrate 
that  they  do  what  is  equivalent,  viz.,  condemn  it 
"  implicitly,  virtually,  and  consequentially  ;"  "  as 
negative  prohibitions  are  implied  in  positive  pre- 
cepts ;  as  drunkenness  is  forbid  by  commanding 
sobriety,  and  irregularity  condemned  by  a  precept 
to  obse^rve  order.  The  ancients  would  be  of  little 
use  to  us  in  modern  controversy,  if  we  suppose 
them  to  condemn  nothing,  but  what  they  specify 
in  terms.  At  this  rate  we  might  despair  of  confut- 
ing late  inventions  and  modern  corruptions  from 
Fathers  or  Councils  ;  for  it  is  evident  they  could 
not  so  in  terms  condemn  what  they  never  thought 
of.  But  notwithstanding  their  very  silence  in  some 
cases  is  a  sufficient  condemnation  ;  and  very  often 
the  general  reason  they  went  upon,  in  cases  dispu- 
ted in  their  times,  may  be  applicable  to  others  af- 
7 


74  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

terwards  ;  and  so  what  they  do  by  consequence  or 
parity  of  reason  condemn,  they  do  as  certainly 
condemn,  though  not  so  directly."* 

Bearing  in  mind  this  obviously  just  rule,  let  us 
proceed  to  the  evidence.  And  here  we  are  met 
upon  the  threshold  by  a  difficulty,  the  very  opposite 
of  that  which  annoys  our  adversaries.  They  can 
hardly  find  any  evidence  on  their  side,  that  even 
they  themselves  deem  pertinent.  We  are  so  sur- 
rounded by  witnesses,  whose  unequivocal  testimony 
is  full  and  overflowing,  that  the  task  of  selection  is 
extremely  perplexing.  For  all  those  passages  in 
the  ancient  Fathers,  which  restrict  ministration  in 
holy  things  to  the  three  Orders  of  the  Ministry, 
and  make  no  exception  in  favor  of  the  Laity,  tend 
directly  to  the  point,  at  which  we  aim,  the  invali- 
dating Lay-Baptism.  The  validity  of  Lay-Baptism 
(as  Dr.  Waterland  justly  observes)  must  have  some 
principle  to  rest  upon,  if  it  is  to  stand  at  all.  We 
have  seen  already,  in  examining  the  evidence  for 
it,  that  no  universally  acknowledged  principle  or 
principles  have  been  adduced  from  Antiquity  to 
sustain  it.  Now  it  is  our  part  to  show  that  princi- 
ples universally  recognized  by  the  Primitive  Church 
make  directly  against  it,  or,  in  other  words,  invali- 
date it. 

For  instance  :    1.  All  those    passages   in    the 

*  Waterland,  X.  p.  104. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  75 

Fathers  which  represent  the  Bishop  as  the  Centre 
of  Unity  in  the  Church,  and  forbid  that  any  thing 
shall  be  done  without  him,  go  to  invalidate  Bap- 
tisms performed  by  those,  who  neither  derive  their 
authority  from  him,  nor  hold  it  in  subordination  to 
him.  Thus  St.  Ignatius  writing  to  the  Church  at 
Smyrna,  says,  '■''  Let  no  one  perform  any  ecclesiastical 
office  without  the  Bishop,"  which  (says  Bingham) 
"  he  explains,  both  there  and  elsewhere,  to  mean, 
without  his  authority  and  'permission^  And  again, 
in  the  same  epistle,  "  It  is  not  lawful  either  to  Bap- 
tize^ or  celebrate  the  Eucharist^  without  the  Bishop  j 
hut  that  which  he  allows  is  well-pleasing  to  God,''''  It 
were  useless  to  transcribe  more  of  the  numberless 
passages,  which  enforce  the  same  rule,  and  recog- 
nize the  same  principle.  Now  we  maintain  that 
this  principle  is  fatal  to  all  Baptisms  (or  other  sa- 
cerdotal acts)  which  are  performed  by  un-commis- 
sioned  agents  or  laymen.  For  what  does  this  prin- 
ciple mean,  when  unfolded  1  It  means  nothing 
less  nor  more  than  this  ;  that  a  Baptism,  or  other 
sacerdotal  act,  which  the  Bishop  has  not  authorized 
by  ordaining  an  agent  to  perform  it,  is  destitute  of 
Divine  sanction,  is  not  God's  act.  I  know  some 
will  reply  that  the  Bishop  may  authorize  a  layman 
to  baptize  in  case  of  necessity,  or  (as  the  advocates 
of  Lay-Baptism  among  us  are  forced  to  contend) 
may  even  ratify  and  give  validity  ex  post  facto  to 
Baptisms  administered  by  any  body  and  under  any 


76  LAY-BAPTISM. 

circumstances.  But  I  reply,  show  me  this  power 
in  his  commission,  or  make  it  palpable  that  the 
Apostles,  and  their  successors,  one  and  all,  always, 
and  everywhere,  acted  upon  or  avowed  this  prin- 
ciple ;  and  then  I'll  stretch  my  faith  so  far  as  to  be- 
lieve it.  In  the  mean  time,  I  take  it  upon  me  to 
deny  that  even  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  are 
lords  over  the  Sacraments,  ordained  by  their  Lord, 
and  of  which  they  are  only  the  stewards.  Their 
authority  is,  indeed,  I  allow  and  contend,  essential 
to  the  ministration,  and  very  being,  of  the  Sacra- 
ments :  that  authority,  however,  is  not  to  be  con- 
veyed in  whatever  way  they  choose,  but  in  the  way 
which  Christ  taught  his  Apostles,  and  which  they 
taught  their  immediate  successors,  and  which,  in 
spite  of  irregularities,  has  been  handed  down  to 
our  times,  viz.,  by  setting  men  apart  to  God^s  service 
in  Ordination,  and  thus  empowering  them  to  act  in 
Christ's  stead,  and  to  administer  His  holy  Sacra- 
ments. 

That  Bishops  had  not  an  arbitrary  authority  in 
conferring  power  to  administer  the  Sacraments, 
may  be  inferred  from  the  fact,  that  when  they  had 
once  dulj^  authorized  a  man  to  act  in  holy  things 
as  Christ's  representative,  they  could  not  take  back 
that  power,  nox  invalidate  his  after  acts,  if  they  were 
done  according  to  our  Lord's  institution.  It  is 
true  that  they  might  restrain  the  exercise  of  the 
right  or  pov/er  to  baptize,  &c.,  and   in  case  of  dis- 


LAY-BAPTISM.  77 

obedience  suspend  or  excomnaunicate  the  offender. 
But  even  after  that,  his  acts  were  valid,  because 
they  were  performed  by  one,  upon  whom  ordina- 
tion had  indelibly  and  forever  impressed  the  sacer- 
dotal character.  I  grant  that  the  Africans  under 
Cyprian,  and  many  Asiatics,  denied  this,  and  an- 
nulled, or  treated  as  invalid,  the  Baptisms  of  schis- 
matical  ministers,  on  the  ground  that  their  schism 
had  deprived  them  of  the  sacerdotal  character,  and 
had  thereby  disqualified  them  for  conveying  sacra- 
mentally  spiritual  blessings.  But  the  contrary 
principle  was  recognized  as  Catholic,  from  the  time 
of  the  first  Nicene  Council  ',  and  the  authority, 
which  Episcopal  ordination  had  once  imparted,  to 
minister  in  holy  things,  was  allowed  to  be  perpetual 
and  irrevocable.  It  is  plain,  then,  we  think,  that 
the  Bishop  could  only  in  one  way  authorize  (in  the 
strict  ^ense  of  the  term)  any  sacerdotal  ministra- 
tion, Baptism  included. 

This  conclusion  is  justified  by  another  consid- 
eration. In  the  second  passage  quoted  from  St. 
Ignatius  it  is  said,  that  "  it  is  not  lawful,  either  to 
baptize,  or  to  celebrate  the  Eucharist,  without  the 
Bishop  ;  but  that  which  he  allows  is  well-pleasing 
to  God."  Now,  if  this  is  to  be  so  interpreted  as 
respects  "  baptizing,^''  that  the  Bishop  may  ratify 
the  ministration  of  a  layman  therein,  and  give  va- 
lidity to  his  acts  \  it  must  be  interpreted  in  the  same 
way  in  regard  to  "  celebrating  the  Eucharist,^''  and 
7* 


78  LAY-BAPTISM. 

lay-consecration  thereof  must  be  held  valid.,  if  the 
Bishop  "  allow"  it.  And  so  on  to  the  end  of  the 
chapter.  Such  a  mode  of  interpretation  proves 
quite  too  much  in  favor  of  Episcopal  prerogative 
for  our  churchmanship  to  digest ;  and  furnishes  a 
new  example,  to  show  that  the  advocates  of  the 
largest  liberty  are  often  the  most  efficient  promo- 
ters of  despotism. 

We  claim,  then,  that  all  the  countless  passages 
in  the  Apostolic  Fathers  and  other  ancient  authors, 
v/hich  make  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  necessary 
to  ministration  in  holy  things,  and  to  the  validity 
of  sacerdotal  acts,  do  in  effect  utterly  exclude  lay- 
men from  all  interference  therein,  and  render  their 
usurpations  utterly  void  and  their  acts  invalid; 
inasmuch  as  the  Bishop  himself  cannot  authorize  a 
layman  to  act  in  holy  things,  except  by  ordaining 
him  ;  i.  e.  by  causing  him  to  cease  being  a  layman  \ 
after  which  his  acts  are  truly  sacerdotal. 

2.  Again,  all  those  passages  in  the  writings  of 
the  Primitive  age,  which  either  recognize  the  sa- 
cerdotal character  of  the  Ministry,  as  exclusively 
authorized  to  act  "  as  God's  peculiar  Priests,  prox- 
ies or  representatives"  or  which  set  forth  Baptism 
as  the  sign  and  seal  of  a  covenant  between  God  and 
man  ;  do  virtually  suppose  or  imply  the  invalidity 
of  Lay-Baptism.  For  a  proxy  is  such  only  by  vir- 
tue of  his  commission  ;  and  a  covenant  can  only  be 
made  valid  by  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  contracting 


LAY-BAPTISM.  79 

parties,  or  of  their  legal  representatives.  No  array 
of  quotations  is  here  necessary;  we  are  content 
with  the  acknowledgments  of  our  opponents  on  this 
head.  Mr.  Kelsall,  for  example,  "  denies  not  but 
it  is  easy  to  collect  many  passages  out  of  St.  Igna- 
tius and  others  of  the  ancientest  writers,  wherein  the 
right  of  administering  in  religious  matters  is  as- 
serted to  the  Priesthood^  as  proper  ojily  to  them, 
and  the  people  forbidden  to  meddle  or  do  any  thing 
in  holy  things  without  the  concurrence  and  appro- 
bation of  the  Bishop  ;" — (which,  we  have  shown, 
he  can  only  give  hy  ordination.)  "To  the  same 
effect  St.  Chrysostom  *(who  flourished  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  fifth  century),  discoursing  of  the 
dignity  of  the  Christian  Priesthood,  and  thereupon 
mentioning  the  two  Sacraments  of  the  Church,  the 
power  of  the  Keys,  &c.,  says,  "  all  these  things  are 
admimstered  by  no  other,  but  only  by  those  sacred 
hands,  those,  I  say,  of  the  Priest."!  Both  the  prin- 
ciples here  laid  down  are  so  universallj^  held  by 
ancient  writers,  and  so  generally  allowed  by  our 
opponents  (except  when  they  make  against  this 
particular  case  of  Lay-Baptism),  that  we  may  pass 
on  to  another  topic. 

3.  We  claim,  then,  that  all  the  testimony  from  the 
Fathers  (and  indeed  from  all  other  sources),  which 

*   Chrysos.  de  Sacerdot.  1,  III.  c.  5. 
t  "  Answer/'  &c.  p.  45. 


80  LAY-BAPTISM. 

invalidates  Lay-Ordination^  or  Lay-Consecration  of 
the  Eucharist^  <^c.,  does^  by  parity  of  reasonings  neces- 
sarily  invalidate  Lay-Baptism.  And  here  we  have 
in  our  favor  the  consent  of  all  Antiquity.  This  no 
churchman  will  presume  to  deny  j  if  our  premise 
hold  good,  that  what  invalidates  one  must  invalidate 
all.  But  some  imagine  a  difference  in  the  cases, 
which  excepts  Lay-Baptism  from  the  operation  of 
the  general  principle. 

One  says,  '  true  Lay-Baptism  is  unlawful,  irregu- 
lar and  criminal ;  but  nevertheless,  when  a  layman 
has  washed  another  with  water  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  he  has  baptized  him  j  Quod  factum  factum."* 
I  rejoin  :  Lay-Ordination  is  unlawful,  irregular  and 
criminal ;  but  nevertheless  when  a  layman  has  laid 
his  hands  upon  another,  and  uttered  the  usual  form 
of  words,  he  has  ordained  him.  Or,  Lay-Consecra- 
tion of  the  Eucharist  is  unlawful,  irregular  and 
criminal  j  but,  nevertheless,  when  a  layman  has 
broken  bread,  and  taken  the  cup,  and  blessed  them, 
he    has    consecrated  them.       Quod  factum  factum. 

Another  argues  that  every  Christian  is  a  Priest  ; 
and  although  for  the  sake  of  order  none  should 
minister  in  holy  things,  but  they  who  have  au- 
thority given  them  in  the  congregation  ;  still,  since 
every  layman  is  competent  to  act  in  God's  stead  by 
virtue  of  his  inherent  Priesthood,  if  such  a  one 
baptize,  his  act  is  valid^  and  ought  not  to  be  re- 
peated.    Mutatis  mutandisy  I  affirm  the  same,   oa 


LAY-EAPTISM.  81 

the  same  plea,  and  with  the  same  reason,  of  Lay- 
Ordination^  &c.  And  in  like  manner  it  will  be 
found  that  every  pretence  offered  in  favor  of  making 
Lay 'Baptism  an  exception  to  the  rule^  that  the  acts  of 
un-commissioned  agents  in  holy  things  are  invalid — 
will  apply  with  equal  force  and  fairness  to  each  and 
every  function  of  the  Priestly  office.  If  so,  surely 
the  argumentum  ad  ahsurdum  is  conclusive  against 
the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism. 

We  shall  close  this  chapter  with  some  ancient 
testimony,  that  goes  to  establish  our  position. 

The  first  witness  is 

St.  Cyprian,  A.  D.  248. 

Although  St.  Cyprian  does  not  so  much  as  men- 
tion Lay-Baptism  expressly,  he  is  notwithstanding 
axompetent  witness  against  it.  For  in  his  con- 
troversy respecting  the  validity  of  the  Baptisms  of 
schismatical  clergy,  he  invalidates  such  Baptisms 
mainly  on  the  ground,  that  the  administrators  by 
schism  had  forfeited  their  commission  ;  that  their 
orders  were  null,  and  therefore  their  Baptisms  in- 
valid :  in  other  words,  that  being  mere  laymen  they 
could  not  confer  valid  Baptism. 

It  is  true  that  he  does  not  state  it  precisely  in 
these  terms  j  for  "  it  was  not  necessary  for  him  to 
say  that  Lay-Baptism  is  allowed  to  be  invalid ; 
therefore  so  is  the  Baptism  of  schismatics  j  because 


82  LAY-BAPTISM. 

this  would  have  been  beggmg  the  question,  and 
proving  idem  per  idem.  The  point  was  only  whether 
schismatics  had  forfeited  their  orders  or  not ;  and 
how  impertinent  would  it  have  been  for  St.  Cyprian 
to  observe  that  laymen  could  not  baptize,  unless 
his  adversaries  had  allowed  the  schismatical  clergy 
to  be  no  more  than  laymen  j  which  they  never  did 
allow,  but  still  contended  they  were  Priests.  *  *  * 
He  Get  himself  to  prove  that  they  were  not  Priests^ 
that  they  had  lost  their  commissions,  that  they  had 
no  sacerdotal  power  or  character  left ;  and  that 
therefore  their  Baptisms  were  invalid,''^  *  *  * 

"  St.  Basil,  therefore,  was  much  in  the  right  in 
saying,  that  Cyprian  and  Firmilian,  with  their 
adherents,  rejected  the  Baptisms  of  schismatics 
upon  this  principle,  that  being  cut  off  from  the 
church  and  become  laics,  larxol  yevoiJieroi,  they  had 
lost  the  power  of  baptizing."  *  *  *  "  What  I  have 
here  asserted  is  abundantly  confirmed  from  St. 
Austin's  management  of  this  controversy  with  the 
Donatists  afterwards.  The  main  point  which  he 
undertakes  to  prove,  and  in  which  he  prevails  and 
triumphs  over  his  adversaries  at  every  turn,  is  thai 
heresy  and  schism  did  not  null  or  vacate  order's.  For 
when  the  Donatists  objected  to  him,  that  schism 
deprived  them  of  the  right  of  baptizing,  he  denies  it 
utterly,  and  pleads  strongly  for  the  indelible  char- 
acter.     And  he  proves  it  unanswerably  upon  a  prin- 


LAY-BAPTISM.  83 

ciple  which  both  sides  acknowledged,  viz.,  that 
heresy  or  schism  did  not  vacate  Baptism  before  re- 
ceived in  the  Church,''^ 

"  St.  Austin  argues  upon  this  principle,  if  Bap- 
tism once  validly  given  is  always  valid,  then  orders 
once  validly  given  are  always  valid;  therefore  ca?j 
never  he  deleted  by  any  heresy,  schism,  or  apostacy  ; 
therefore  schismatical  clergymen  still  retain  their 
sacerdotal  character ;  therefore  their  ministrations, 
and  particularly  Baptism,  are  still  valid,  inasmuch 
as  they  could  not  lose  their  right  of  baptizing  given 
in  their  ordination.  This  is  so  clear  all  the  way  in 
Austin's  dispute  with  the  Donatists,  that  he  that 
runs  may  read  it.  It  is  plain,  then,  that  he  thought 
the  strength  of  Cyprian's  cause  consisted  in  this 
one  mistaken  principle,  that  schism  and  heresy  null- 
ed orders  ;  and  that  if  St.  Cyprian  had  been  con- 
vinced of  that  mistake,  he  would  have  changed  his 
opinion.  What  is  this  but  asserting,  or  at  least  in* 
sinuating,  the  very  same  thing  with  St.  Basil ;  that 
Cyprian  rejected  the  Baptism  of  schismatics  because  he 
rejected  their  orders,  and  looked  upon  them,  as  to 
any  sacerdotal  power  or  right,  as  being  no  more 
than  laymen  ?"  *  *  * 

"I  have  mentioned  St.  Austin  only  as  a  witness 
of  St.  Cyprian's  sense  and  meaning,  whom  he  tho- 
roughly studied,  and  as  thoroughly  confuted,  with 
respect  to  that  point  on  which  Cyprian  grounded 
his  opinion,  viz.,  that  heresy  or  schism  nulled  orders  ; 


84  LAY-BAPTISM. 

which  being  removed  there  was  nothing  consider- 
able left  to  support  the  doctrine  of  the  invalidity  of 
heretical  or  schismatical  Baptisms^  if  administered  in 
due  form  with  water  and  in  the  name  of  the  Blessed 
Trinity." 

I  have  quoted  the  foregoing  passages  from  Dr. 
Waterland's*  very  clear  exposition  of  the  turning 
point  in  the  Cyprianic  controversy,  because  it 
greatly  confirms  our  position  ',  and  because  Bing- 
ham has  laid  great  stress  upon  this  controversy ; 
and  has  perverted  it  in  favor  of  Lay-Baptism,  by 
denying  the  Catholic  principle  of  the  indelible  char- 
acter, and  by  assuming  that  the  heretics  and  schis- 
matics, whose  Baptisms  the  Church  allowed  in  op- 
position to  Cyprian,  were  mere  laymen  \  and  conse- 
quently that  the  Church  allowed  the  validity  of  Lay- 
Baptism,  although  administered  by  heretics  or 
schismatics.  His  premise,  that  heretical  and  schis- 
matical clergymen  had  ?^xso/«Ci:o  forfeited  their  Or- 
ders is  sufficiently  disproved  by  a  single  unqxies- 
tionahle  fact,  viz.,  that  such  clergymen,  if  re- 
stored to  the  Communion  of  the  Church,  and  al- 
lowed to  minister  in  holy  things,  were  never  re-or- 
dained. Wherefore,  "  1  cannot  but  wonder  (with 
Dr.  W.)  at  Mr.  Bingham's  strange  attempt,  strange 
in  a  man  of  his  learning  and  sagacity,  to  overthrow 
this  so  well-grounded  notion  of  the  indelible  char^ 

*  Works,  X.  p.  116,  ss. 


LAY- BAPTISM.  85 

acter  of  Orders  ;  by  which,  whatever  he  pretends, 
he  runs  cross  to  all  Antiquity,  except  the  African 
Church  in  the  time  of  St.  Cyprian,  and  a  few  years 
before  and  after." 

Bingham,  after  all,  by  a  happy  inconsistency, 
admits  all  we  ask,  though  in  the  main  he  strives  to 
prove  heretical,  schismatical,  and  apostate  Priests, 
mere  laymen.  He  Avas  too  honest,  however,  to  be 
a  good  special  pleader  in  a  bad  cause  j  and  accord- 
ingly he  allows  that  the  ordination  of  such  a  Priest 
"  remains  so  far  indelible  and  inviolable,  as  that 
if  the  Church  thinks  fit,  after  all  his  crimes  and 
suspensions,  to  admit  him,  upon  his  repentance,  to 
officiate  in  that  station  again,  he  shall  not  need  a 
new  ordination  to  qualify  him  for  it ;  in  this  sense 
there  are  none  among  the  Ancients  but  will  allow 
-heretics  and  schismatics  to  be  Bishops  or  Priests, 
according  to  their  respective  Orders."*  This  is 
all  we  ask  ;  on  this  ground  we  afSrai  that  the  in- 
delible character  was  a  Catholic  Doctrine  ;  for  if  the 
sacerdotal  character  had  been  deleted  by  heresy, 
&:c.,  it  could  only  be  re-impressed  by  a  new  ordina- 
tion. 

It  is  evident,  I  think,  that  both  the  contending 
parties  in  the  Cyprianic  controversy  assumed  or 
allowed  the  invalidity  of  Lay-Baptism  ;  and  that 
the  issue  between  them  was  whether  schismatical 

*  Scho].  Hist.  I.  22. 


86  LAY-BAPTISM. 

and  heretical  clergymen  lost  ipso  facto  their  sacerdo- 
tal character^  and  with  it  the  power  of  conferring  valid 
Baptism.  The  Cyprianists  maintained  the  affirma- 
tive^  and  therefore  rejected  their  Baptisms  as  inva- 
lid :  the  Church  decided  in  the  negative^  diX\&  ac- 
cordingly recognized  their  Baptisms  as  valid* 

After  the  foregoing  account  of  the  Cyprianic 
controversy  had  been  written,  I  met  with  a  passage 
in  Bingham,  much  to  my  surprise,  in  which  that 
learned  writer  strangely  contradicts  his  own  spe- 
cial pleading  in  regard  to  this  subject,  by  the  seem- 
ingly unconscious  statement  of  an  historical  fact. 
Speaking  of  "  Cyprian  and  all  his  associates"  he 
says, — "they  thought  no  Baptism  could  be  valid, 
unless  both  the  administrator  was  an  authorized 
person,  and  his  Baptism  could  also  exhibit  all  those 
spiritual  graces,  which  are  ordinarily  the  effects  of 
Catholic  Baptism  ;  but  both  these  things  were  want- 
ing in  the  Baptism  of  heretics,  viz.,  both  authority 
and  spiritual  graces;  and  therefore  they  concluded 
their  Baptism  to  be  invalid."! 

Here  he  represents  Cyprian  and  his  associates 
as  resting  the  charge  of  invalidity  against  heretical 
Baptisms,  1,  on  v:ant  of  authority  in  the  administra- 
tor ;  and,  2,  on  the  deficiency  of  such  Baptisms  in 
spiritual  graces.  It  is  plain,  then,  from  his  own 
confession,  that  one  party  in  the  controversy  sought 

*  See  Note  (P).  t  Schclast.  Hist.  I.  19. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  87 

to  invalidate  heretical  Baptisms  by  proving  them 
Xay-Baptisms,  i.  e.  Baptisms  of  which  "  the  admin- 
istrator was  an  unauthorized  person  ;"  or,  in  other 
words,  assumed  the  invalidity  of  Lay-Baptism  as  the 
basis  of  the  argument.  And  if  the  one  party  assum- 
ed it,  the  other  allowed  it  by  not  objecting  to  it.  For 
surely  had  they  deemed  the  foundation,  on  which 
Cyprian  built,  unsound,  they  would  have  pulled  it 
down  or  have  taken  it  from  under  him  ;  which  they 
did  not  even  attempt.  Besides,  is  it  not  clear  that 
his  opponents  must  have  denied  one  or  both  of  the 
two  fundamental  principles,  on  which  his  argument 
rested  1  Now  it  is  certain  that  they  did  not  ques- 
tion the  second  principle,  that  heretical  bapisms  were 
deficient  in  spiritual  graces  ;  for  the  whole  Church 
sanctioned  this  principle  by  word  and  deed,  as 
'Bingham  fully  shows.  They  must  therefore  have 
objected  to  the  first  principle,  that  the  heretical 
Clergy  were  unauthorized  Administrators  of  Bap- 
tism ;  in  other  words,  they  must  have  alleged  that 
they  were  authorized  Administrators,  and  that  there- 
fore their  acts  were  valid.  And  by  authorized  Ad- 
ministrators they  must  have  meant  ordained  Priests, 
still  retaining  the  Commission  of  Christ,  and  the 
power  of  the  keys  j  for  they  could  not  have  meant 
it  in  the  loose  sense  of  countenanced  by  the  Bishop, 
since  this  was  not  the  case. 

It  is  plain,  I  repeat,  from  Bingham's  own  state- 
ment of  fact,  that  when  Cyprian  called  heretical 


QQ  LAY-BAPTISM. 

Ministers  unauthorized  AdmimstrB.iOYs  of  Baptism, 
he  called  them  laymen  ;  and  that  when  his  oppo- 
nents called  them  authorized  Administrators,  they 
called  them  Priests.  For  I  will  not  trifle  with  my 
readers'  patience  by  exposing  the  monstrosity  of 
that  mongrel  species,  the  abortive  progeny  of  a 
perplexed  brain,  a  nameless  and  homeless  tertium 
quid,  neither  clergy,  nor  laity  ;  for  which  Bingham 
strives  to  find  "a  local  habitation"  (but  not  "a 
name"),  by  placing  them  vaguely  enough,  "a5  it 
were,  in  a  sort  of  middle  state  betwixt  both,^^  viz., 
the  clergy  and  the  laity !  So  much  for  theorizing 
and  special  pleading  !* 

In  a  word,  it  is  clear  (Bingham  himself  being 
witness),  that  both  parties  in  the  Cyprianic  contro- 
versy, assuming  the  invalidity  of  Lay-Baptism  as  a 
conceded  Catholic  principle,  sought,  the  one  to 
prove  heretical  Ministers  to  be  mere  laymen,  and 
their  Baptisms  therefore  invalid,  the  other  to  prove 
them  to  be  still  Priests,  and  their  Baptisms  therefore 
valid. 

St.  Basil,  A.  D.  370. 

"  As  to  St.  Basil,"  says  Bingham,  "  it  will  be 
readily  owned,  that  he  had  somewhat  of  a  singular 
opinion  in  this  matter ;  for  he  was  for  rebaptizing 
all  persons,  that  were   only  baptized  by   laymen  \ 

*  Scholast.  Hist.  I.  22. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  89 

as  he  was  also  for  rebaptizing  all  that  were  bapti- 
zed by  heretical  and  schismatical  Priests ;  for  he 
brings  in  Cyprian,  and  Firmilian,  his  predecessor 
in  the  see  of  Csesarea,  arguing  after  this  manner,* 
"  Heretics  and  schismatics  are  broken  off  from  the 
Church  and  become  laymen j  and  thereforeh^YQ  no 
power  to  baptize^  or  to  ordain,  being  no  longer  able 
to  give  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  others,  which 
they  have  lost  themselves.  Therefore,  such  as  are 
baptized  by  them,  when  they  return  to  the  Church, 
are  to  be  rebaptized  with  the  true  Baptism  of  the 
Church,  as  being  only  baptized  by  laymen. "f 

Is  it  not  palpable  that  St.  Basil  here  tacitly  as- 
sumes the  invalidity  of  Lay-Baptism,  as  an  unques- 
tioned fact  j  and  thence  infers  the  invalidity  of 
Baptism  administered  by  heretical  or  schismatical 
Priests,  on  the  ground  that  such  Priests  had  lost 
their  orders,  and  therefore  had  "  no  power  to  bap- 
tizCj  or  to  ordain  V  By  the  way,  it  is  worth  ob- 
serving that  he  rests  the  "  power  to  baptize^^"*  and 
the  "  power  to  ordain'''  on  the  same  foundation  (viz. 
of  Divine  Commission),  and  makes  t-hem  stand  or 
fall  together.  Pity  it  is  that  "  what  God  has  joined 
together"  men  will  "  put  asunder." 


*   Basil,  Ep.  I.  ad  Amphiloch.  c.  5.      For  the  original 
Greek,  see  Note  (Q). 

t  Scbolast.  Hist.  c.  I.  sect.  15. 

8* 


90  LAY-BAPTISM. 

Apostolical   Coxstitutio]N'S. 

Although  the  precise  date  of  the  several  parts 
of  this  collection  cannot  be  ascertained,  it  is  never- 
theless allowed  that  the  compilation  was  completed 
before  the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  and  that  it 
therefore  affords  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  pre- 
valent practice  of  the  Church  for  some  time  prior 
to  that  period.  Bingham,  who  makes  frequent  nse 
of  these  "  Constitutions,"  thus  refers  to  them  in 
connection  with  the  subject  of  "  usurped  and  un- 
authorized Baptism  by  laymen."  "  The  author  of 
the  Apostolical  Constitutions  seems  to  pronounce 
severely  of  usurped  and  unauthorized  actions,  as 
utterly  null  and  void.  He  has  a  whole  chapter 
with  this  title,  '  That  it  is  a  horrible  thing  for  a 
man  to  thrust  himself  into  the  Priest's  dignity  or 
office,  as  the  Corahites,  and  Saul,  and  Uzzias  did  :' 
and  he  thus  expresses  himself  upon  it  :  'As  it  was 
not  lawful  for  a  stranger,  that  was  not  of  the  tribe 
of  Levi,  to  offer  any  thing,  or  approach  the  altar 
without  a  Priest ;  so  do  ye  nothing  without  the 
Bishop.  For  if  any  man  does  any  thing  without 
the  Bishop,  he  does  it  in  vain  :  it  shall  not  be  re- 
puted to  him  as  any  service.  As  Saul,  when  he 
had  offered  sacrifice  without  Samuel,  was  told  that 
he  had  done  vainly ;  so  whatever  layman  does 
any  thing  without  a  Priest,  he  labors  in  vain.   And 


LAY-BAPTISM.  91 

as  King  Uzzias,  when  he  had  invaded  the  Priest's 
office,  was  smitten  with  leprosy  for  his  transgres- 
sion, so  every  layman  shall  bear  his  punishment 
that  contemns  God,  and  insults  his  Priests,  and 
takes  honor  to  himself,  not  imitating  Christ,  who 
glorified  not  himself,  but  stayed  till  his  Father 
said,  '  Thou  art  a  Priest  for  ever  after  the  order  of 
Melchizedek.'  "* 

Bingham  endeavors  to  break  the  force  of  the 
foregoing  unqualified  denunciation  by  a  paraphrase 
suited  to  his  case  j  the  acts  of  such  a  usurper  are 
"  vain  as  to  what  concerns  himself.''''  Plow  does  this 
agree  with  his  former  admission,  "  The  author 
seems  to  pronounce"  them  ''Utterly  null  and  voidV 
We  accept  the  latter  as  the  natural,  true,  and  Cath- 
olic interpretation. 

We  now  claim  to  have  made  good  our  assertion 
that  "  the  Catholic  doctriiie  and  usage  of  the  Primi- 
tive Church  positively  confirm  the  Arguments  of 
Chapters  II.  and  III.^''  because^ 

1.  We  have  proved,  both  by  passages  of  the 
Fathers  and  by  the  admissions  of  our  opponents 
themselves,  that  the  whole  current  of  ancient  tes- 
timony sets  in  favor  of  that  Argument,  which  was 
derived  from  the  terms  of  our  blessed  Saviour's 
Commission,  and  from  the  Nature  of  the  Sacra- 
ments themselves.     For  all  the  authorities ^  from  the 

*  Schol.  Hist.  c.  I.  sect.  16. 


92  LAY-BAPTISM. 

writings  and  documents  of  the  first  four  centuries, 
that  bear  upon  this  subject,  invariably  and  univer- 
sally recognize  and  confirm  certain  fundamental 
principles^  which  from  their  very  nature  admit  of  no 
exception^  and  which  utterly  annihilate  the  figment  or 
notion  of  the  validity  af  Lay-Baptism.  Such  are  the 
following,  viz.,  that  the  Bishop  is  the  centre  and  sym- 
bol of  the  unity  of  the  Church  ; — that  no  Ministra- 
tion in  holy  things  has  God's  sanction^  or  is  validy 
unless  authorized  by  the  Bishop  ; — that  the  Bishop 
cannot  authorize  a  man  to  act  for  God^  otherwise  than 
by  ordaining  him  ; — that  all  the  sacerdotal  powers 
stand  on  the  same  foundation,  viz.,  0/ Christ's  Com- 
mission, and  that  any  pretence  which  removes  one  of 
them  from  that  Rock,  will  remove  each  and  all  of  them 
from  it,  or,  in  other  words,  underminethem  all  ; — that 
in  Baptism  the  Kew  Covenant  between  God  and  Man 
is  signed  and  sealed,  which  can  be  done  only  by  the 
contracting  parties,  or  their  legally  authorized  rep- 
resentatives ; — that  none  are  legally  authorized  to 
act  for  God,  but  those  whom  the  Bishop  has  ordained^ 
and  thefreby  made  Priests  in  God^s  House,  etc. 

2.  We  have  shown  that  throughout  the  long 
protracted  and  widely  diffused  controversy  about 
the  Baptism  of  heretics  and  schismatics,  the  inva- 
lidity of  Lay-Baptism  was  tacitly  assumed  by  all  par- 
ties as  an  acknowledged  principle  ; — for  they  did  not 
take  for  granted  (as  some  suppose)  that  the  here- 
tics and   schismatics  were  ipso  facto  laymen,  and 


LAY-BAPTISM.  93 

then  go  on  to  prove  that  Lay-Baptism  was  valid  or 
invalid ; — but  they  took  it  for  granted  that  Lay- 
Baptism  was  invalid,  and  then  set  about  to  prove 
that  the  schismatical  and  heretical  Clergy  were  or 
were  not  in  fact  Laymen  ;  whence  it  would  follow 
of  course  that  their  Baptisms  were  accordingly 
either  invalid  or  valid.  And  this  incidental  and 
undesigned  testimony,  afforded  by  the  tacit  and 
general  agreement  of  contending  parties,  is  neither 
to  be  denied  nor  impeached. 


94  LAY-BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER    VII. 

An  'Examination  of  sundry  Pleas,  by  help  of  which  the 
advocates  of  Lay -Baptism  attempt  to  evade  the  At' 
gUments  of  Chapters  II.  and  III. 

"VVe  proceed,  next  in  order,  to  examine  briefly 
certain  exceptions  which  our  opponents  offer  to 
the  arguments  in  our  second  and  third  chapters, 
based  upon  the  Commission  of  our  Lord,  and  the 
nature  of  the  Sacrament. 

1.  Some  think  that  they  find  instances  of  Lay- 
Baptism  in  the  New  Testament  itself.  It  is  alleg  d 
that  the  Apostles  mnst  have  been  aided  by  disci- 
ples, who  were  laymen,  in  baptizing  three  thousand 
souls  in  one  day  :  "  Then  they  that  gladly  received 
the  word,  were  baptized ;  and  the  same  day  there  were 
added  unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls.'^*  But 
is  it  not  clear  that  this  conclusion  is  founded  on 
the  double  and  gratuitous  as:  mption,  that  the 
Apostles  could  not  have  baptized  so  many  them- 
selves, and  that  they  did  not  ordain  any  for  the 
purpose  1 

Again  the  Baptism  of  St.  Paul  is  cited  as  a  case 
in  point. f  Ananias,  it  is  asserted,  was  a  layman 
only,  and  yet  baptized  him.     Now,  first,  it  does  not 

*  Acts  2:  41.  f  Ibid.  9:  18. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  95 

clearly  appear  that  Ananias  was  the  baptizer;  nor 
that  he  was  a  layman.  But  admitting  both  points, 
it  is  certain  that  Ananias  was  sent  by  God.  We  will 
cheerfully  allow  the  claim  of  any  man  to  baptize, 
who  will  furnish  us  with  as  good  proof  that  he  too 
has  been  thus  sent^  even  though  he  may  not  have 
received  Episcopal  ordination. 

The  case  of  Cornelius  and  his  household  is  not 
at  all  more  favorable  to  Lay-Baptism  ]  for  when  St. 
Peter  "commanded  them  to  be  biptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord,'^*  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  he 
gave  the  command  to  those  who  were  competent 
and  authorized  to  minister  in  holy  things.  At  all 
events  the  contrary  cannot  be  made  out,  except  by 
a  groundless  assuniption,  which  can  never  set  aside 
a  well  establislied  principle. 

These,  it  is  believed,  are  all  the  particular  cases 
in  the  New  Testament,  that  our  opponents  deem 
favorable  to  their  hypothesis.  It  needs  no  com- 
ment to  show  their  entire  inadequacy  to  prove,  or 
to  make  plausible,  the  alleged  exception  to  the 
rule  of  sacerdotal  ministration. 

2.  There  is  another  mode,  by  which  it  is  sought 
to  establish  the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism,  by  running 
a  parallel  between  Preaching  and  Baptizing.  Both 
are  by  the  Commission  intrusted  wholly  and  solely 
to  the  Apostles  and  their  successors;  and  to  such 

*  Acts  10:   48. 


96  LAY-BAPTISM. 

as  hold  from  and  under  them  lawful  authority  to 
minister  in  holy  things.  But  still,  it  is  argued, 
God's  word  takes  effect  upon  the  hearer,  or  is  valid, 
notwithstanding  the  want  of  a  commission  on  the 
part  of  him  who  preaches  it :  why  then  should  not 
the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  likewise  take  effect,  or 
be  valid^  notwithstanding  the  same  defect  is  in  him 
who  administers  it  %  Or,  to  state  it  with  most  ad- 
vantage, in  Hooker's  words  ; — "he  which  teacheth 
and  is  not  sent,  loseth  the  reward,  but  yetretaineth 
the  name  of  a  teacher  j  his  usurped  actions  have  in 
him  the  same  nature  which  they  have  in  others, 
although  they  yield  him  not  the  same  comfort. — 
And  if  these  tv^o  cases  be  peers,  the  case  of  doc- 
trine and  the  case  of  baptism  both  alike,  sith  no 
defect  in  their  vocation  that  teach  the  truth  is  able 
to  take  away  the  benefit  thereof  from  him  which 
heareth ;  wherefore  should  the  want  of  a  lawful 
calling  in  them  that  baptize  make  Baptism  to  me 
vain  V* 

This  argument  looks  plausible,  because  both 
powers  are  delegated  by  the  same  Commission  to 
the  same  parties.  But  is  there  not  a  difference  be- 
tween the  Word  and  Sacraments  considered  by  and 
in  themselves,  which  reconciles  our  claim  of  ex- 
clusive validity  for  the  Sacrament  lawfully  admin- 
istered with  our  admission  of   the  validity  of  the 

*  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  V.  62,  13, 


LAY-BAPTISiT.  97 

Wordj  altlioiigh  unlaiofully preachcdl  The  Sacra- 
ment (or  its  outward  form),  we  contend,  is  no  Sacra- 
ment unless  sacerdotally  dispensed  ;  just  as  a  Cove- 
na?it  (or  its  outward  form)  is  no  Covenant,  which. 
is  not  lawfully  signed  and  sealed.  But  the  \Yord 
is  God's  Word,  preach  or  publish  it  who  may. — 
And  although  we  venture  not  with  Hooker  to  re- 
gard it  as  a  matter  of  indifference  (so  far  as  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  Word  is  concerned)  by  whom  it  is 
proclaimed,  whether  by  hallowed  or  unhallowed 
lips  ;  we  admit,  notwithstanding,  that  man  cannot 
make  utterly  void  or  i7ivahd  God's  revealed  truth. 
We  deny  therefore  the  justness  of  the  parallel  be- 
tween the  Word  and  the  Sacrament,  as  above  ex- 
hibited;  and  suggest  the  following  as  a  better 
illustration  of  the  case.  'A  man  need  not  go  to 
chijrch,  and  hear  a  minister  of  Christ  read  and 
preach  God's  Word  ;  for  it  is  no  more  God's  Word 
when  preached  or  read  by  an  ordained  Priest,  than 
when  preached  or  read  by  any  body  else.  He  may 
as  well  therefore  read  and  preach  for  himself  at 
home.  And  since  the  Word  and  the  Sacrament 
stand  upon  the  same  footing,  what  is  true  of  one 
must  be  true  of  the  other.  A  man  therefore  need 
not  go  to  church,  and  receive  Baptism  from  a  min- 
ister of  Christ,  for  it  is  no  more  God's  Sacrament 
when  administered  by  an  ordained  Priest,  than 
when  administered  by  any  body  else.  He  may  as 
well  stay  at  home  and  baptize  himself.' — Let  those 
9 


98  LAY-BAPTISM. 

who  like  the  conclusiori,  accept  the  premises,  and 
deny  all  difference  between  preaching  the  Word  and 
administering  the  Sacraments.  Those  are  not  true 
parallels,  which,  when  carried  out,  cross  one  an- 
other. It  is  obvious  that  things  may  accord  in 
many  particulars,  and  differ  in  others.  Preaching 
and  Baptizing  agree,  in  that  they  are  committed  by 
Christ  to  the  same  keeping,  and  can  both  be  legally 
exercised  only  by  commissioned  agents;  but  they 
differ  in  that  their  validity  is  not  equally  depend- 
ent upon  their  legality.  Preaching  by  a  layman^ 
though  unlaw^ful,  is  yet  valid  to  him  that  heareth 
with  faith,  because  what  he  hears  is  nevertheless 
the  Word  of  God.  Washing  by  a  layman  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity,  unlawful  like  the  former,  is 
unlike  {^invalid  to  the  receiver,  because  what  he 
receives  is  not  the  Sacrament  q/*  Christ.* 

3.  The  next  plea  urged  in  defence  of  Lay-Bap- 
tism is  made  to  rest  upon  a  comparison  of  the 
Christian  Sacrament  of  Baptism  with  the  Jew^ish 
Rite  of  Circumicision.  It  is  alleged  that  the  latter 
as  w^ell  as  the  former  was  the  seal  of  the  Covenant 
between  God  and  Man  ;  and  that  therefore,  if  a 
formally  authorized  agent  is  essential  to  the  validity 
of  the  Covenant  sealed  by  Baptism,  such  an  agent 
must  have  been  equally  essential  to  the  validity  of 


*   See  Note  (R),  where  the  foregoing  argument  is  con- 
firmed. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  99 

the  Covenant  sealed  by  Circumcision.  To  all  this 
we  cordially  assent  and  subscribe. 

Well,  then,  argues  the  advocate  of  Lay-Bap- 
tism, you  will  not  deny  that  the  silence  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  regard  to  the  necessity  of  Priestly 
ministration  in  Circumcision,  taken  in  connexion 
with  the  modern  practice  of  the  Jews  (who  deem 
Priestly  administration  un-essentia\  to  its  validity), 
afTords  strong  and  sufficient,  though  only  presump- 
tive, evidence  of  the  ordinary  allowance  of  lay- 
ministration  in  that  Sacrament.  And  if  laymen 
were  competent  to  circumcise  even  in  ordinary 
cases,  surely  they  must  be  equally  competent  to 
baptize  in  cases  of  necessity. 

Now  we  attach  no  more  importance  to  modern 
Jewish  practice  as  evidence  of  ancient  usage  under 
the  Mosaic  economy,  than  we  do  to  modern  Chris- 
tian practice  as  evidence  of  Catholic  usage  in  the 
days  of  Primitive  Christianity.  Nevertheless  we 
are  willing  to  admit  (w^hat  is  after  all  not  certain^ 
for  silence  is  not  always  equivalent  to  assent),  that 
the  laity  were  allowed,  even  in  ordi?iary  cases,  to  ad- 
minister Circumcision.  But  we  deny  the  justness 
of  the  conclusion  thence  drawn  in  favor  of  Lay- 
Baptism ;  for  it  proceeds  upon  the  tacitly  assumed 
and  most  erroneous  premise,  that  God  was  not 
competent,  when  he  introduced  by  Christ  the  "  bet- 
ter Covenant,"  to  make  a  change  in  the  agent,  as 
well  as  in  the  form  of  sealing  it.     The  follow^ing 


100  LAY-BAPTISM. 

we  deem  the  true  mode  of  reconciling  the  differ- 
ence between  the  Jewish  and  Christian  seal  of  the 
Covenant  in  respect  to  the  administrator.  Moses, 
by  God's  direction,  allowed  laymen  ordinarily  to 
circumcise ;  they  v\^ere  therefore  God's  authorized 
agents  for  this  particular  purpose.  For  surely  no 
one  will  have  the  boldness  to  pretend  that  they  or- 
dinarily usu7yed  authority  in  holy  things ;  this 
would  be  to  make  the  whole  people  a  race  of  Ko- 
rahites.  And  if  they  were,  as  we  doubt  not,  God's 
authorized  agents,  then  their  action  was  both  law- 
ful and  valid ^  or  valid  because  lawful.  Nor  let  it 
be  supposed  that  this  is  an  ingenious  theory  (like 
Tertullian's  inherent  Priesthood),  got  up  to  meet 
an  emergency.  On  the  contrary,  it  has,  we  think, 
sure  warrant  in  Holy  Scripture.  For  was  not 
Abraham^  the  first  minister  of  circumcision,  an 
agent  of  the  Lord,  authorized  to  represent  God  in 
this  and  other  holy  ministrations  1  Had  not  the 
Patriarchy  prior  to  the  Mosaic  economy,  lawful 
authority  to  act  in  holy  things  from  and  for  God  % 
It  seems  indeed  palpable  that  Moses  retained 
certain  features  of  the  Patriarchal  economy,  when 
he  instituted  a  Priesthood  wholly  separated  from 
secular  life,  to  administer  the  more  complex  econ- 
omy, which  superseded  the  former.  And  one  of 
these  remains  of  the  Patriarchal  system,  which  sur- 
vived the  change,  was  the  authorizing  laymen  (or, 
as  we  are  disposed  to  think,  the  head  of  the  houses 


LAY-BAPTISM.  101 

hold,  the  Patriarch)  to  administer  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision. This  solution  has  in  its  favor  the  pre- 
sumptive evidence  already  adduced  from  the  Pa- 
triarchal economy  (under  which^  be  it  noted,  cir- 
cumcision was  first  instituted)  ;  and  it  is  besides 
the  only  solution  known  to  us,  that  meets  satisfac- 
torily all  the  difficulties  of  the  case.  For  it  shows 
that  the  rite  of  circumcision  was  not  committed  (as 
some  seem  to  think)  to  the  keeping  and  adminis- 
tration of  any  body  or  ?zo-body  j  but  was  by  God 
himself  put  in  charge  of  the  Patriarch,  or  head  of 
each  family,  who  was  thereby  constituted  for  this 
purpose  a  lawful  minister  of  God.*  And,  on  the 
other  hand,  this  solution  is  in  no  respect  at  vari- 
ance with  the  ordinance  of  Christ ;  or  with  the 
Catholic  doctrine,  that  under  the  New  Covenant, 
none  are  God's  proxies  or  priests,  or  competent  to 
perform  any  sacerdotal  act,  but  such  as  have  been 
authorized  by  those  whom  Christ  set  apart  as  His 
sole  representatives  on  earth,  viz.  the  Apostles  and 
their  successors.  For  this  solution  recognizes  an 
authorized  and  legal^  and  therefore  valid,  sealing  of 
both  Covenants  (the  old  and  the  new),  by  Circum- 
cision and  Baptism  respectively  5  and  it  refers  the 

*  None,  it  is  presumed  will  object  that  the  Patriarch  was 
not  a  lawful  minister  of  circumcision,  because  not  ordained 
by  laying  on  of  hands.  For  none  surely  can  suppose  that 
God  is  tied  to  any  particular  mode  of  designating  his  agent, 
though  he  may  tie  our  hands,  if  he  will. 

9* 


102  LAY-BAPTiSM. 

change  in  the  administrator  as  well  as  in  the  mode 
of  his  designation^  to  the  good  pleasure  of  Him, 
"  who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  His 
own  will." 

But  if  the  advocate  of  Lay-Baptism  declines  this 
explanation,  which  we  nevertheless  deem  sufficient ; 
the  parallel  attempted  to  be  run  between  Baptism 
and  Circumcision  will  serve  his  cause  no  better 
than  that  between  Baptism  and  Preaching.  For, 
be  it  carefully  noted,  that  under  the  Mosaic  econ- 
omy lay-administration  of  the  initiatory  Rite  was 
lawful  and  regular  as  well  as  valid.  If  then  "  these 
two  cases  be  peers,"  we  are  entitled  to  carry  out 
the  parallel,  and  to  conclude  that  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation  lay-administration  of  Baptism  is 
likewise  lawful  and  regular^  as  well  as  valid.  Is 
not  this  a  plain  reductio  ad  ahsurdum  ? 

There  is  however  another  hook  on  which  they 
strive  to  hang  an  argument  in  favor  of  Lay-Bap- 
tism, but  on  which  Lay-Baptism  itself  were  more 
fitly  hung,  viz.,  the  case  of  Zipporah's  circumcising 
her  son.* 

We  are  not  disposed  to  lay  much  stress  upon 
the  plea  sometimes  urged,  that,  in  her  husband's 
inability,  Zipporah  had  a  natural  right  to  act  in  his 
stead  ;  for  we  acknowledge  no  natural  right  in  re- 
gard to  &. positive  institution  of  God.     It  follows, 

*  Exodus  4:  24—26. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  103 

therefore,  either  that  women  were  authorized  to  ad- 
minister circumcision  in  ordinary  cases;  or,  that 
Zipporah's  circumcision  was  a  mere  usurpation; 
or  that  the  case  was  an  extraordinary  one,  and  that 
she  received  from  God  a  special  commission  for 
that  single  occasion.  The  first  hypothesis  is  ut- 
terly baseless,  if  we  except  this  single  case,  and 
cannot  be  entertained  for  a  moment.  The  second 
we  deem  equally  untenable,  for  (as  Hooker  argues) 
''  the  sequel  thereof,  take  it  which  way  you  will,  is 
a  plain  argument,  that  God  was  satisfied  with  what 
she  did,  as  may  appear  by  his  own  testimony  de- 
claring how  there  followed  in  the  person  of  Moses 
present  release  of  his  grievous  punishment,  upon 
her  speedy  discharge  of  that  duty,  which  by  him 
neglected  had  offended  God,  even  as  after  execu- 
tion of  justice  by  the  hands  of  Phinehas  the  plague 
was  immediately  taken  away,  which  former  impu- 
nity of  sin  had  caused."*  We  have  therefore  little 
doubt  (for,  when  Scripture  is  silent,  we  may  but 
conjecture,  and  that  with  diffidence)  that  the  third 
hypothesis  accords  with  the  facts  of  the  case,  and 
that  Zipporah  did  receive  authority  from  God  to  do 
for  her  husband,  what  he  was  through  his  own  fault 
then  incompetent  to  do.  God  may  have  seen  fit  to 
teach  his  chosen  Prophet,  now  entering  upon  his 
long  career  of  trial,  the  necessity  of  unhesitating 

*  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  V.  62,  21. 


104  LAY-BAPTISM. 

obedience  to  each  and  all  of  His  commands,  by 
subjecting  him  to  peril  of  life  for  his  disobedience 
in  this  particular.  And  yet,  in  judgment  remem- 
bering mercy,  He  may  have  seen  fit  to  allow  him 
the  benefit  of  another's  obedience  in  his  stead ; 
and  therefore  to  have  sanctioned  in  this  extraordi' 
nary  case  a  deviation  from  the  usual,  regular  and 
lawful  mode  of  ministration.  If  so,  Zipporah's  min- 
istration was  authorized  and  lawful^  and  therefore 
valid.  Any  other  explanation  of  this  singular  case 
is  attended  with  insuperable  diffiiculty.  And  no 
exposition  of  it  favorable  to  Lay-Baptism  can  be 
suggested,  w^hich  would  not  bring  us  back  to  Rome 
in  this  matter,  and  sanction  the  validity  if  not  the 
legality  of  Baptism  by  women^  at  least  in  cases  of 
necessity. 

4.  We  would  not  again  refer  to  the  alleged 
right  of  Bishops,  as  the  chief  stewards  of  God's 
mysteries,  to  authorize  laymen  to  baptize  in  extra- 
ordinary cases,  and  even  to  sanction  ex  post  facto 
any  and  all  pretended  Baptisms,  by  whomsoever 
and  under  whatsoever  circumstances  administered  j 
were  it  not  that  such  great  stress  has  been  laid  on 
this  erroneous  and  dangerous  assumption,  and  did 
it  not  find  an  auxiliary  in  that  respect  and  rever- 
ence for  the  chief  Pastors  of  the  Church,  which  it 
is  so  desirable  to  cherish  and  so  imprudent  and 
improper  to  abuse. 

In  this  matter  Bingham  has  run  to  most  absurd 


LAY-BAPTISM.  105 

and  dangerous  lengths.     He  saw  that  if  un-aulhov- 
ized  Lay-Baptisms  were  countenanced,  all  order  in 
the  Church  would  soon  be  at  an  end ;  that  it  would 
be,  like  a  house  without  door  or  keeper,  "trodden 
under  foot  of  men."     It  was  necessary,  therefore, 
to  devise  a  remedy  for  this  sad  evil,  and  to  subject 
Lay-Baptism  to   some   disability  or    disadvantage, 
and  also  to  the  cognizance  of  some  tribunal  com- 
petent to  try  its  merits  and  to  remedy  its  alleged 
defects.     The  Primitive  Church  had  never  expressly 
legislated  upon  the  subject,  because  there  was  no 
occasion.       What  then  was  to  be  done  in  order  to 
press  antiquity  to  support  this  doubtful  case  ]     It 
was  remembered  that  in  the  ancient  Church  there 
was   a   Catholic  rule,  that   the   Bishop's  authority 
is  essential  to  legalize  ministration  in  holy  things; 
and  that  in  the  case  of  schismatical  and   heretical 
Baptisms  their  acknowledged  deficiencies  were  sup- 
plied  by  the    Bishop's   laying  his   hands  upon  the 
reconciled  penitent.     Here  was  a  foothold  for  Lay- 
Baptism  ;  one    step  more   and   it   would   stand   on 
firm  ground.     Accordingly,  schismatical  and  heret- 
ical clergymen  were  voted    laymen  (with  Cyprian 
and  his  associates),  the  Catholic  church  and  Bino-- 
ham's  own  slips  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding  \ 
and  their  Baptisms  of  course  Lay-Baptisms.     And 
on  this  fictitious  precedent  was  based  the  Catholi- 
city of  the   rule  that    Lay-Baptisms    were    valid^ 
though  defective  ]  and  that  their  deficiencies  were 


106  LAY-EAPTISM. 

to  be  supplied  by  the  laying  on  of  the  Bishop's 
hands  in  Confirmation  :  from  which  it  follows  ne- 
cessarily that  Bishops  possess  the  power  of  ratifying 
and  completing  any  Baptisms  whatsoever,  if  the  pre- 
scribed element  and  form  of  words  have  been  used. 
Here  is  a  principle  broad  enough  to  cover  any  and 
every  imaginable  case  of  illegal  and  irregular  Bap- 
tism. 

We  have  already  held  up  to  view  this  novel 
claim /or  (not  by)  the  Bishops  of  arbitrary  control 
over  Christ's  Sacrament  in  more  than  one  light, 
and  now  refer  to  it  mainljr  to  expose  yet  more  fully 
Bingham's  extravagance  and  inconsistency  in  the 
matter,  occasioned,  as  we  believe,  by  the  badness 
of  his  cause.  His  perplexity,  arising  from  the  fact 
that  heretical  and  schismatical  clergymen  were  not 
re-ordained,  if  restored  to  their  former  privileges, 
has  been  already  noticed  ;  as  well  as  his  vain  at- 
tempt to  untie  the  knot  by  putting  them  "  as  it  were 
in  a  sort  of  middle  state  between"  the  clergy  and 
the  laity,  that  the  reconciling  Bishops  might  not 
have  so  far  to  raise  them  without  the  lever  of  Ordi- 
nation.— According  to  which  notion,  by  the  way, 
he  ought  to  have  put  their  Baptisms  "  as  it  were,  in 
a  sort  of  middle  state  between"  Baptism  and  wash- 
ing, or  between  a  verity  and  a  nullity. — There  is 
another  strange  inconsistency  into  which  he  has  be- 
trayed himself,  that  merits  passing  notice,  because 
it  helps  to  expose  the  falsity  and  absurdity  of  his  hy- 


LAY-BAPTISM.  107 

pothesis.  It  relates  to  the  predicament  of  the  An- 
glican Church  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation.  Let 
him  state  the  case  himself. 

"  If  it  be  inquired  now  how  the  reformed  Church 
of  England  comes  to  have  full  and  ample  authority 
to  baptize,  which  before  was  an  heretical  and  schis- 
matical  Church,  under  the  slavery  of  the  Romish 
j^oke  1  I  answer,  by  shaking  off  that  yoke  and  re- 
forming her  errors,  and  returning  to  the  unity  of 
the  Catholic  Church  ;  which  was  the  ancient  me- 
thod for  schismatical  and  heretical  Bishops  and 
other  clergy,  to  gain  that  lawful  authority  that  em- 
powered them  to  officiate  legally,  which  they  had 
not  and  could  not  have,  w^iilst  they  continued  in 
their  errors  and  out  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church. 
Thus  the  great  council  of  Nice  decreed  in  the  case 
of  the  Novatians,  that  upon  their  return  to  the 
Church  they  should  continue  in  the  same  station 
and  clerical  degrees  they  were  in  before,  only  re- 
ceiving a  reconciliatory  imposition  of  hands,  by 
way  of  absolution.'*  And  by  virtue  of  this  they 
had  now  the  full  power  and  license  of  the  Church 
to  authorize  them  to  officiate,  which  they  certainly 
had  not  before.  And  this  was  the  case  of  the  Do- 
natists  in  the  time  of  St.  Austin,  as  appears  from 
the  writings  of  that  father,  and  several  canons  in 
the  African  code,  of  which  I  have  given  a  particu- 

*   Con.  Nic.  Can.  8. 


1U»  LAY-BAPTISM. 

lar  account  in  another  place.  The  same  rule  and 
method  then,  which  was  used  and  allowed  in  the 
Primitive  Church,  was  that  which  authorized  the 
English  Bishops  and  Priests  to  officiate  legally  upon 
their  reforming  from  their  heretical  and  schisma- 
tical  errors  and  corruptions,  and  returning  to  the 
strict  and  perfect  unity  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church. 
And  so  those  persons,  who  could  only  give  valid 
Baptism  before,  as  heretics  and  schismatics  may 
do  by  a  kind  of  usurpation,  were  now  qualified  au- 
thoritatively to  give  it  every  way,  legal,  perfect 
and  authentic."* 

Now,  be  it  remembered,  that,  according  to 
Bingham's  assumption,  heretics  and  schismatics  are 
laymen,  and  their  Baptisms  therefore  Lay-Baptisms; 
and  that,  by  his  admission,  the  xA^uglican  Church, 
on  the  eve  of  the  Reformation,  was  "  an  hereti- 
cal and  schismatical  Church,"  her  clergy  of  course 
heretics  and  schismatics,  and  therefore  laymen^  and 
their  Baptisms  Lay-Baptisms.  And  furthermore,  be 
it  observed,  that  (according  to  Mr.  B.)  such  Lay- 
Baptisms  must  be  ratified  and  completed  by  imposi- 
tion of  the  hands  of  a  lawful  Bishop  ;  and  that  such 
heretical  and  schismatical  {quondam)  ministers  can 
be  transferred  from  their  lapsed  or  lay  condition 
only  by  the  "  reconciliatory  imposition  of  hands, 
by  way  of  absolution,"  given  by  a  lawful  Bishop 
of  the  Catholic  Church. 

*   Schol.  Hist.  I.  23, 


LAY-BAPTISM.  109 

Now  where  were  these  lawful  Bishops  who  thus 
restored  the  nominal  Bishops  but  actual  laymen 
(Bingham  judice)  of  the  Anglican  Church,  to  the 
possession  of  their  forfeited  privileges,  as  the  Cath- 
olic Bishops  of  the  Nicene  council  did  the  Nova- 
tian  clergy,  by  imposition  of  hands  and  absolution  1 
If  anywhere,  they  must  have  been  among  those 
"noble  professors"  the  "  Waldenses,  or  the  Albi- 
genses,  and  the  Fratres  Bohemi,"  who  "  opposed 
the  corruptions  of  the  Romish  Church,  and  kept 
themselves  free  from  her  heretical  stains  and  pol- 
lutions," the  "  seven  thousand  who  never  bowed 
the  knee  to  BaaU"  But  had  the  English  heretics 
and  schismatics  the  grace  to  seek  this  needed 
cleansing  from  the  stains  of  heresy,  this  panacea 
for  all  the  ills  the  Church  is  heir  to,  through  man's 
fault  and  folly  1  Alas  !  no  ; — so  that,  on  Bingham's 
showing,  the  Church  of  England,  and  by  conse- 
quence our  own  likewise,  has  neither  lawful  Bap- 
tism nor  any  Ministry  at  all  !  Surely,  if  this  be  so, 
we  ought  to  make  diligent  search  after  some  Bishop, 
if  haply  we  may  find  such,  whose  powers  have  de- 
scended through  a  channel  undefiled  by  heresy  or 
schism,  or  any  thing  that  defileth  and  maketh  un- 
clean, to  the  end  that  our  Bishops  and  clergy  may 
be  translated  from  that  "  middle  state,"  to  which 
their  predecessors'  sin  has  else  unchangeably  con- 
demned them.  Are  not  the  premises  from  which 
10 


110  LAY-BAPTISM. 

such  conclusions  are  logically  derived,  at  once  ab- 
surd and  false  % 

How  much  more  consistent  with  reason  and 
antiquity  to  hold,  that  neither  heresy  nor  schism, 
nor  any  other  personal  defect,  can  null  orders  \  that 
heretical  and  schismatical  clergymen  are  (though 
unworthy)  ministers  of  Christ,  and  their  ministra- 
tions valid,  though  defective  ;  that  all  a  lawful 
Bishop  can  do  to  such  ministrations,  is  to  recog- 
nize them  in  the  name  of  Christ  and  of  his  Church, 
and  to  confer  by  other  ordinances  needed  spiritual 
grace  to  the  returning  penitent ;  and  consequently 
that  a  Bishop  cannot  make  that  Baptism  either 
valid  or  complete^  which  is  not  performed  by  a  law- 
ful (though  unworthjr)  Priest,  nor  authorize  what 
neither  Christ  nor  the  Church  has  authorized. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  Ill 


CHAPTER   VII  I. 

An  Examination  of  the  Argument  in  favor  of  Lay- 
Baptism^  derived  from  the  alleged  consequences  of 
the  contrary  doctrine. 

The  upholders  of  Lay-Baptism  have  dwelt 
largely  and  mournfully  upon  the  "  black  and  tragi- 
cal" consequences,  which,  as  they  think,  necessa- 
rily attend  the  practical  recognition  of  its  utter  in- 
validity. It  behooves  us,  therefore,  to  notice  this 
argument  so  prevalent  and  conclusive  with  many 
minds,  although  in  truth  we  have  little  respect  or 
affection  for  such  a  mode  of  reasoning.  For  con- 
sequences can  only  be  ascertained  with  certainty 
after  the  event  (which,  as  regards  this  and  oth- 
er questions  affecting  the  Church,  is  the  end  of 
the  world);  and  our  prophetic  conjectures  respect- 
ing them  are  apt  to  take  their  color  from  our 
wishes  or  our  prejudices.  The  only  safe  and  cer- 
tain way  then,  in  all  questions  of  moral  and  religious 
import,  is  to  go  to  the  law  and  the  testimony,  and 
to  follow  out  faithfully  and  fearlessly  their  dictates 
and  directions.  This  we  have  sought  to  do  in  the 
foregoing  part  of  our  argument;  and  we  deem  the 
conclusions  arrived  at  so  firm  and  sure,  that  no 
array  of  probable  consequences  could  deter  us  from 
adhering  to  them.     But  we  think  it  can  be  shown 


1 12  LAY-BAPTISM. 

satisfactorily  that  the  "black  and  tragical"  conse- 
quences, foreseen  by  some  in  this  case,  are  mere 
phantoms  of  a  disordered  imagination  or  creations 
of  an  unbridled  fancy. 

1.  The  first  consequence  we  notice  is,  that  this 
doctrine  of  the  utter  invalidity  of  Lay- Baptisms  (includ- 
ing all  those  of  non-Episcopal  ministers)  shuts  out 
of  the  Covenant  of  mercy,  and  thereby  consigns  to 
perdition,  the  millions  who  have  hitherto  died,  or  shall 
hereafter  die,  vjithout  any  other  Baptism,  their  faith 
and  obedience  (in  other  respects)  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding.  We  admit  that  this  doctrine  does 
really  and  truly  imply  such  exclusion  from  all  for- 
mal claim  to  the  privileges  of  that  Covenant,  of 
which  Baptism  is  the  seal  j  and  we  hold  with  the 
Church,  that  the  Sacraments  are  "  generally  neces- 
sary to  salvation  ;"  but  w^e  deny  that  it  necessarily 
follows  from  this,  that  those  who  have  received  a 
false  Baptism  are  thereby  consigned  to  perdition, 
or  are  even  in  the  same  predicament  with  the  un- 
baptized  and  unevangelized  heathen.  For  as  Mr. 
Lawrence  justly  reasons  on  this  point :  "  As  for 
the  dismal  consequences  of  unauthorized  Lay-Bap- 
tism's being  null,  viz.  that  persons  so  falsely  bap- 
tized are  not  Christians,  are  shut  out  of  Chrisfs 
Covenant,  and  are  no  better  than  heathens  ;  these  are 
but  accidental,  and  owing  to  men's  sins  and  im- 
pieties, affecting  only  those  who  are  guiltily  in- 
volved in  them.     But  as  for  others,  who  believe  the 


LAY-BAPTISM.  113 

articles  of  the  Christian  faith,  who  cannot  be  accus- 
ed of  any  criminal  neglect,  and  who  are  unwillingly, 
unaffectedly,  and  yet  invincibly  ignorant  of  the  ne- 
cessity of  (and  therefore  never  received)  Episcopal, 
which  is  the  only  instituted  Baptism,  'tis  reasona- 
ble to  believe,  that  their  case  is  no  worse  than  that 
of  the  Primitive  Catechumens,  or  candidates  for 
Baptism,  who  happened  to  die  before  they  could 
be  admitted  to  that  Sacrament,  and  yet  were  not 
reckoned  as  shut  out  of  Christ'' s  Covenant^  and  no 
tetter  than,  heathens  :  for  though  we  are  bound  to 
every  particular  institution  of  God,  yet  He  is  not, 
and  therefore  can  give  the  inward  spiritual  graces 
where  the  outward  part  of  a  Sacrament  cannot  be 
obtained;  which  leaves  room  enough  for  our  chari- 
table sentiments  of  the  case  of  many  thousands 
who  never  received  the  external  Baptism  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  having  only  been  washed  by  lay 
persons,  without,  or  contrary  to,  the  authority  of 
the  Bishops."* 

Our  blessed  Lord  has  said,  "  he  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  It  is  therefore  our 
bounden  duty  to  inculcate  the  great  importance 
and  the  general  necessity  of  a  true  and  valid  Bap- 
tism, as  well  as  of  a  genuine  and  living  faith,  what- 
ever consequences  may  in  man's  judgment  seem  to 
follow.     Not  even  the  Judge   of  quick  and  dead 

*   Sacerdotal  Powers,  p.  77. 
10* 


114  LAY-BAPTISM. 

Himself  (we  speak  with  reverence)  can  dispense 
with  genuine  faith  as  a  condition  of  salvation  ;  for 
it  is  the  living  root  from  which  all  other  graces  de- 
rive their  health  and  vigor,  and  "  without  faith,'^ 
and  "  holiness"  its  fruit,  no  man  can  "  please  God," 
"  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord."  But  Christ,  who 
ordained  Baptism  as  one  of  the  means  of  grace,  may 
by  some  other  means  convey  that  grace  to  faithful 
souls,  of  w^hich  the  want  of  valid  Baptism  would 
else  deprive  them.  He  who  does  often  assuredly 
give  some  degree  of  grace  (even  the  grace  of  faith 
itself,  which  in  the  adult  is  a  prerequisite  for  holy 
Baptism,)  to  those  yet  unbaptized,  may  give  yet 
more  and  more,  even  the  grace  of  life  eternal,  to 
such  as  cannot  show  his  written  pledge  and  promise 
to  grant  to  them  that  gracious  boon,  because  their 
copy  of  His  Covenant  bears  not  His  genuine  seal 
and  signature  ;  while  others,  in  whose  charter  no 
flaw  or  informality  can  be  detected  by  the  strictest 
scrutiny,  shall  hear  the  withering  sentence,  "I 
never  knew  you,  depart  from  me,  ye  w^orkers  of 
iniquity."  Let  us  not,  however,  undervalue  the  im- 
portance, nay  necessit}^,  of  true  and  valid  Baptism 
"  where  it  may  be  had  :"*  we  know  and  affirm  that "  he 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;"  we  do 
not  know  and  dare  not  affirm  the  same  with  equal 
certainty  of  him  who  believeth  and  is  not  baptized. 

*   See  the  "  Exhortation"  in  the   Office  for  the   "  Bap- 
tism of  those  of  riper  years." 


LAY-BAPTISM.  115 

Before  leaving  this  topic,  it  may  not  be  amiss 
to  observe  that  the  foregoing  argument  from  con- 
sequences is  quite  as  applicable  to  the  case  of  lay- 
administration  of  the  Eucharist  as  to  that  of  Lay- 
Baptism,  and  makes  as  much  for  the  one  as  for  the 
other.  The  injunction  of  our  Saviour,  the  consent 
of  antiquity,  and  the  express  testimony  of  our  own 
standards,  represent  both  Sacraments  as  equally 
necessary  to  salvation,  at  least  to  adults.  "It  can- 
not be  denied,"  says  Hooker,  "but  sundry  the  same 
effects  and  benefits  which  grow  unto  men  by  the 
one  Sacrament  may  rightly  be  attributed  unto  the 
other.  Yet  then  doth  Baptism  challenge  to  itself 
but  the  inchoation  of  those  graces,  the  consumma- 
tion whereof  dependeth  on  mysteries  ensuing.  We 
receive  Christ  Jesus  in  Baptism  once  as  the  first 
beginner,  in  the  Eucharist  often  as  being  by  con- 
tinual degrees  the  finisher  of  our  life.  By  Baptism 
therefore  we  receive  Christ  Jesus,  and  from  him 
that  saving  grace  which  is  proper  unto  Baptism. 
By  the  other  Sacrament  we  receive  Him  also,  im- 
parting therein  himself  and  that  grace  which  the 
Eucharist  properly  bestoweth."* — Surely  that  Sa- 
crament, on  which  dependeth  the  "  consummation 
of  those  graces,"  of  which  Baptism  doth  "  chal- 
lenge to  itself  but  the  inchoation ^^''  is  not  less  ne- 
cessary to  salvation  than  the  latter  Sacrament ; 
without  question,    it  is  as  needful  that  we  should 

*  Eccles.  Polityj  v.  57.  6. 


1 16  LAY-BAPTISM. 

"receive  Christ  Jesus  in  the  Eucharist  often  as 
being  by  continual  degrees  x\iQ  finisher  of  our  life," 
as  that  we  should  receive  Him  "in  Baptism  once 
as  the  first  heginne:'"  of  it  j  unless  indeed  to  live  is 
of  less  account  than  to  he  horn.  If  then  the  denial  of 
the  validity  of  La3--Baptism  involves  the  denial  of 
spiritual  hirth  to  all  who  have  received  no  other 
Baptism  j  so  does  the  denial  of  the  validity  of  Lay- 
Consecraiion  of  tho  Eucharist  involve  likewise  the 
denial  of  spiritual  life  to  all  those  who  receive  it 
only  from  lay  hands.  And  if  the  consequences  of 
the  former  denial  are  so  grievous  as  utterly  to  con- 
tradict it  and  to  prove  it  false,  the  same  is  true  of 
the  second  ;  if  on  this  ground  Lay-Baptism  must  be 
allowed  to  be  validj  so  must  Laj^-Consecration  of 
the  Eucharist. 

By  the  way,  tl  a  latter  part  of  the  foregoing 
quotation  from  Hocker,  confirms  a  position  assum- 
ed in  a  former  chapter,  that  the  participation  of  one 
Sacrament  cannot  atone  for  the  neglect  of  the  other, 
seeing  that  each  has  its  proper  grace,  which  it  is 
the  appointed  means  of  conveying.  This  truth  is 
more  distinctly  set  forth  in  the  sentence  that  com- 
pletes the  paragraph  :  "  So  that  each  Sacrament  hav- 
ing both  that  which  is  general  or  common,  and  that 
also  which  is  peculiar  unto  itself,  we  may  hereby 
gather  that  the  participation  of  Christ,  which  pro- 
perly belongeth  to  anyone  Sacrament,  is  not  other- 
v\,'ise  to  be  obtained  but  by  the  Sacrament  where- 


LAY-BAPTISM.  117 

unto  it  is  proper."  AVhenever,  therefore,  any  one, 
who  has  received  only  washing  with  water,  in  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  from  an  uncommissioned 
agent  or  layman,  is  satisfied  of  the  invalidity  of 
such  Baptism,  we  hold  it  to  be  his  solemn  duty  to 
seek  legal  and  valid  Baptism  from  a  lawful  minis- 
ter of  Christ,  even  as  it  is  the  duty  of  the  con- 
verted Jew  or  heathen  to  be  "  baptized  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins." 

2.  Another  objection  to  the  doctrine  that  Lay- 
Baptism  is  utterly  null  and  void,  derived  from  sup- 
posed consequences,  is  that  many  must  in  that  case 
die  wholly  unhaptized^  whenever  in  extreme  necessity 
a  lawful  minister  cannot  be  had^  as  for  example,  new- 
ly born  infants  who  die  presently  after  birth ;  in 
which  case  it  is  alleged  the  hardship  is  greater,  as 
these  cannot  have  either  faith  in  Christ  or  the  in- 
tention of  receiving  Baptism  5  and,  since  "necessi- 
ty has  no  law,"  it  is  better  that  a  layman  should 
run  the  risk  of  doing  what  he  has  no  authority  to 
diO,  than  that  the  salvation  of  such  innocent  and 
helpless  beings  should  be  put  in  jeopardy  5  or,  at 
all  events,  however  it  may  fare  with  the  lay  usur- 
per of  the  priestly  office,  that  such  Baptisms  do 
nevertheless  stand  firmly  on  this  ground  of  neces- 
sitj'-,  or  in  other  words  are  valid. 

To  this  we  reply  in  general,  that  these  cases  do 
not  constitute  one  in  a  thousand  of  the  Lay-Bap- 
tisms with  which  we  have  to  do,  and  that  therefore 


118  LAY-BAPTISM. 

this  objection  hardly  touches  our  main  argument. 
Besides,  in  the  case  of  infants,  why  should  not  the 
faith  and  intention  of  their  parents  avail  them  with 
a  merciful  God  when  they  necessarily  lose  Bap- 
tism, even  as  the  faith  and  profession  of  their  spon- 
sors a,vail  them  when  they  actually  receive  it  % 
Surely  in  the  case  supposed  a  parent  has  a  better 
right  to  hope  that  God,  who  "  will  have  mercy  and 
not  sacrifice,"  will  accept  his  righteous  intention 
of  Baptism  for  his  child  coupled  with  reverent  obe- 
dience to  the  institution  of  Christ,  rather  than  his 
irregular  administration  of  it,  by  a  presumptuous 
usurpation  of  priestly  power,  in  contempt  of  God's 
holy  ordinance ;  for  "  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice.''^ 
And  as  resp*ects  the  lay-administrator  himself, 
where  in  the  whole  compass  of  God's  word  can  he 
find  warrant  for  perilling  his  own  soul  by  disobe- 
dience, that  he  may  save  thereby  the  soul  of  an- 
other 1  Let  him  rather  take  warning  from  Uzza's 
fate,  and  not  presume  to  overstep  the  appointed 
limits  of  his  office,  even  though  he  vainly  hope, 
or  weakly  strive,  to  stay  thereby  the  tottering  Ark 
of  God.  Are  God's  commands  so  unreasonable 
and  contradictory,  that  obedience  to  one  does  or 
can  in  any  case  involve  disobedience  to  another  ? 
Surely  this  can  never  be  ;  the  action  that  proceeds 
on  this  hypothesis  is  impious. 

Again,  we  repeat  that  the  plea  of  the  absolute  ne- 
cessity of  Baptism,  as  the  ground  of  justifying  the 


LAY-BAPTISM.  119 

lay-administration  of  it,  is  unscriptural,  unreason- 
able and  vain.  To  illustrate  this  further  in  Hook- 
er's words, — "  the  law  of  Christ,  which  in  these 
considerations  maketh  Baptism  necessary,  must  be 
construed  and  understood  according  to  rules  of 
natural  equity.  *  *  *  And,  because  equity  so  teach- 
eth,  it  is  on  all  parts  gladly  confessed,  that  there 
may  he  in  divers  cases  life  by  virtue  of  inward  Bap- 
tism, even  where  outward  is  not  found.  So  that 
if  any  question  be  made,  it  is  but  about  the  bounds 
and  limits  of  this  possibility.  *  *  *  It  hath  been 
therefore  constantly  held,  as  well  touching  other 
believers  as  martyrs,  that  Baptism  taken  away  by 
necessity,  is  supplied  by  desire  of  Baptism,  because 
with  equity  this  opinion  doth  best  stand." 

"  Touching  infants  which  die  unbaptized,  sith 
they  neither  have  the  Sacrament  itself,  nor  any 
sense  or  conceit  thereof,  the  judgment  of  many 
hath  gone  hard  against  them.  But  yet  seeing 
grace  is  not  absolutely  tied  unto  Sacraments,  and 
besides  such  is  the  lenity  of  God  that  unto  things 
altogether  impossible  he  bindeth  no  man,  but 
where  we  cannot  do  what  is  enjoined  us  accepteth 
our  will  to  do  instead  of  the  deed  itself;  again, 
forasmuch  as  there  is  in  their  Christian  parents  and 
in  the  Church  of  God  a  presumed  desire  that  the 
Sacrament  of  Baptism  might  be  given  them,  yea  a 
purpose  also  that  it  shall  be  given;  remorse  of 
equity  hath  moved  divers    of  the    school   divines 


120  LAY-BAPTISM. 

ill  these  considerations  ingenuously  to  grant,  that 
God,  all  merciful  to  such  as  are  not  in  themselves  able 
to  desire  Baptism,  imputeth  the  secret  desire  that 
others  have  in  their  behalf,  and  accepteth  the  same 
as  theirs,  rather  than  casteth  away  their  souls  for 
that  which  no  man  is  able  to  help."* 

Bingham  substantially  agrees  with  the  forego- 
ing argument,  when  he  states  "what  opinion  the 
Ancients  had  of  the  necessity  of  Baptism."  *  *  "In 
case  there  was  no  contempt,  but  only  an  unavoida- 
ble and  unforeseen  necessity  hindered  their  Bap- 
tism, whilst  they  were  diligently  preparing  for  it  ; 
in  that  case  they  were  treated  a  little  more  favora- 
bly by  the  Ancients,  who  did  not  generally  think 
the  mere  want  of  Baptism,  in  such  circumstances, 
to  be  such  a  piacular  crime,  as  to  exclude  men 
absolutely  from  the  benefit  of  Church  communion, 
or  the  hopes  of  eternal  salvation.  Some  few  of 
them  indeed  are  pretty  severe  upon  infants  dying 
without  Baptism,  and  some  others  seem  also  in 
general  terms  to  deny  eternal  life  to  adult  persons 
dying  without  it  j  but  yet,  when  they  interpret 
themselves,  and  speak  more  distinctly,  they  make 
some  allowance  and  except  several  cases,  in  which 
the  want  of  Baptism  may  be  supplied  by  other 
means,  when  the  want  of  it  proceeded  not  from 
contempt,  but  from  some  great  necessity  and  disa- 

Ecclesiastical  Polity,  v.  60.   5^  6. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  121 

bility  to  receive  it.  They  generally  ground  the 
necessity  of  Baptism  upon  those  two  sayings  of  our 
Saviour,  *'  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
be  saved,"  and,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water 
and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God  j"  but  then,  in  their  exposition  of  these  texts, 
they  limit  the  sense  to  the  ordinary  method  of  sal- 
vation and  such  cases  v^rherein  Baptism  may  be 
had ;  and  as  for  extraordinary  cases,  wherein  Bap- 
tism could  not  be  had,  though  men  were  desirous 
of  it,  they  made  several  exceptions  in  behalf  of 
other  things,  which,  in  such  circumstances,  were 
thought  sufficient  to  supply  the  want  of  it."* 

3.  The  third  objection  derived  from  conse- 
quences, against  the  principle  of  the  invalidity  of 
Lay-Baptism,  is  a  most  serious  and  appalling  one, 
if  it  be  well  founded.  It  is  alleged  that  if  Baptism 
given  by  a  layman  is  invalid^  then  the  Apostolic  suc- 
cession has  been  either  wholly  broken,  or  else  involved 
in  such  confusion  and  uncertainty  that  it  must  prove 
impossible  to  trace  any  one  continuous  line  of  Bishops 
in  the  Church.  For  as  the  whole  Western  Church 
for  centuries  prior  to  the  Reformation,  and  the  An- 
glican Church  until  the  time  of  James  I.,  allowed 
Lay-Baptism  in  cases  of  necessity,  it  follows  that 
the  Baptisms  of  all  the  Bishops,  Priests  and  Dea- 
cons, who  were   ordained  within  that  period  are 

*  Antiquities,  X.  2.  19. 
11 


122  LAY^BAPTISM. 

liable  to  suspicion  ;  they  may  be,  or  may  not  be 
valid ;  and  very  many  of  them  certainly  are  in- 
valid. Besides  which  many  of  the  Bishops  and 
clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  since  the  time  of 
James  I.,  as  well  as  many  in  the  American  Church, 
have  been  converts  from  the  various  dissenting 
communities,  and  have  been  admitted  to  the  com- 
munion of  the  Church,  perhaps  in  most  instances, 
without  Baptism.  But  it  is  argued,  "  if  the  Bap- 
tism of  such  clergymen  as  we  now  speak  of  was 
(is)  invalid,  so  was  (is)  their  ordination  too  ;  they 
were  (are)  laymen  still,  and  of  the  lowest  class, 
laymen  unbaptized.  They  could  (can)  not  have  the 
keys  of  the  Church  delivered  to  them  before  they 
were  (are)  members  of  it.  Such  men,  acting  as 
Priests,  could  (can)  not  baptize  ;  acting  as  Bishops 
could  (can)- not  ordain.  And  yet  they  did  (do) 
pretend  to  do  both,  as  apprehending  no  cause  to 
doubt  the  competency  of  their  own  authority. — 
The  effect  whereof  must  be  an  endless  propagation 
of  nullities  in  respect  both  of  Baptism  and  Ordina- 
tion. *  *  *  Upon  this  hypothesis  we  can  have  no 
assurance  without  a  revelation  from  heaven,  that 
we  ourselves  are  in  the  Church,  and  consequently 
in  a  state  of  salvation  ;  or  that  there  is  a  Bishop,  a 
Sacrament,  or  a  Christian  in  the  whole  Christian 
world."*     If  this  be  indeed  so,  Mr.  Kelsall  might 

*  Kelsall's  answer  to  Dt,  Waterland's  first  letter. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  123 

well  add,  "  you  see  the  consequences  drawn  from 
this  principle  (viz.  the  utter  invalidity  of  Lay-Bap- 
tism) are  altogether  as  black  and  tragical  as  can  be 
imagined.'''* 

This  whole  argument  rests  upon  the  assumption 
that  Baptism  is  an  essential  qualification  for  orders^ 
or,  in  general  terms,  that  no  one  can  be  an  officer  in 
a  society^  or  perform  valid  official  acts  therein^  who 
has  not  been  legally  and  formally  made  a  member  there- 
of We  submit  that  this  assumption  is  false,  and 
that  therefore  the  objection  itself,  being  without 
foundation,  must  fall  tothe  ground.  It  is  certainly 
fitting  and  right  that  none  should  be  received  as 
candidates  for  the  ministry,  or  admitted  to  holy 
orders,  who  have  not  received  true  and  valid  Bap- 
tism ;  just  as  it  is  fitting  and  right  that  none  should 
be  so  received  or  admitted  who  do  not  possess  per- 
sonal holiness.  These,  as  well  as  other  personal 
qualifications  should  be  demanded  as  prerequisites 
to  ordination.  But  if  through  an  error  of  judgment 
or  w^ant  of  due  care,  on  the  part  of  those  who  have 
lawful  control  in  this  matter,  an  individual  is  or- 
dained who  wants  either  of  the  personal  qualifica- 
tions named,  does  this  mistake  or  neglect  vitiate 
his  lawful  Commission^  and  render  the  acts  regu- 
larly and  duly  performed  by  virtue  of  it  illegal  and 
invalid  % 

Take,  in  the  way  of  illustration,  a  parallel  case. 
The  constitution  of  the  United  States  requires  that 


124  '  LAY-BAPTISM. 

every  candidate  for  the  Presidency  shall  be  a  citi- 
zen of  the  country  by  right  of  birth.  Suppose,  not- 
withstanding, that  a  man  has  been  duly  elected  and 
formally  inaugurated,  or  commissioned ;  and  that  it 
is  afterwards  discovered  that  he  is  neither  a  native 
nor  a  citizen  of  the  country  j  are  all  his  acts  there- 
by rendered  null  and  void  1  Are  they  even  voidable  ? 
We  do  not  pretend  to  legal  knowledge,  and  yet  it 
is  not  presumption  (we  think)  to  affirm  that  every 
lawyer  in  the  land  would  treat  the  hypothesis  as 
ridiculous  ;  and  would  justify  his  verdict  by  refer- 
ring to  the  obvious  distinction  between  personal 
qualifications^  which  constitute  fitness  for  an  office, 
and  official  prerogative  or  powers,  on  which  alone 
depend  the  legality  and  validity  of  official  acts  per- 
formed according  to  law. 

Or,  to  take  a  still  more  analogous  case  ;  the 
judge  of  a  court  of  record  is  competent  by  law  to 
naturalize  aliens,  or,  in  other  words,  to  admit  them 
formally  as  members  of  this  community  of  fellow- 
citizens.  It  is  fitting  and  right,  according  to  law 
and  reason,  that  such  judge  should  have  the  pre- 
vious qualification  of  citizenship,  before  being  eli- 
gible to  the  said  office.  But  if  nevertheless  an  in- 
dividual not  having  that  qualification  should  be 
duly  elected,  through  the  ignorance  or  negligence 
of  the  electors,  and  should  be  formally  inducted 
into  office,  the  regularity  and  legality  of  his  com- 
mission would  give  legality  and  validity  to  all  his 


LAY-BAPTISM.  125 

official  acts  notwithstanding  his  previous  ineligi- 
bility. Surely  no  one  would  venture  to  say  that 
his  personal  disqualification,  arising  from  want  of 
citizenship,  would  render  all  his  acts  of  naturaliza- 
tion null  and  void,  so  that  all  the  individuals  natur- 
alized by  him  would  not  only  forfeit  thereby  the 
character  and  rights  of  citizens,  but  would  in  their 
turn  labor  under  the  same  inability,  if  elected  to 
office,  of  performing  legal  and  valid  acts ;  "  the 
effect  whereof  must  needs  be  an  endless  propagation 
of  nullities  in  respect  both  of  "  naturalization  and 
all  other  public  official  acts  ;  so  that  in  process  of 
time  it  might  well  become  a  matter  of  doubt  whe- 
ther there  was  a  lawful  judge,  a  valid  instrument 
of  naturalization,  or  a  true  citizen  in  the  whole 
country  (on  the  supposition  that  all  citizens  were 
required  to  be  naturalized,  as  all  Christians  are 
commanded  to  be  baptized). 

We  quote  a  single  passage  from  Dr.  Waterland, 
which  is  much  to  the  purpose  : — "  That  there  is  no 
contradiction  or  absurdity  in  the  supposition"  (that 
an  unbaptized  Priest  can  confer  Baptism),  "  appears 
further  from  hence,  that  it  is  not  a  man's  Baptism, 
but  his  Commission,  that  empowers  him  to  act  as 
God's  Minister.  They  are  things  of  a  very  distinct 
nature,  and  given  for  different  ends  ;  and  it  cannot 
be  ehown  that  they  are  essential  parts,  or  at  all 
parts  of  each  other.  A  personal  qualification  may 
be  often  wanting,  where  the  authoritative  one  stands 
11* 


126  LAY-BAPTISxM. 

good.  A  man  may  be  a  heretic,  a  deist,  an  apos- 
tate, an  atheist,  and  yet  be  a  Christian  Priest  j  and 
it  will  be  hard  to  prove  that  the  validity  of  his 
Baptism  depends  any  more  upon  his  Baptism,  than 
it  does  upon  his  faith  or  manners.  A  man  may  be 
an  instrument  of  conveying  that  to  another,  which 
hedoesnot  enjoyhimself  J  and  nothing  is  more  usual 
than  for  proxies  and  representatives  to  confer 
rights,  privileges,  and  powers  to  others,  which 
they  have  not  of  their  own.  A  person  need  not  be 
married  to  be  capable  of  marrying  others,  nor  be 
free  himself  to  enable  him  to  make  others  so  :  pro- 
vided he  has  but  a  commission  (ordinary  or  extra- 
ordinary it  matters  not)  to  empower  him  to  do  it. 
And  why  may  not  the  case  be  the  same  with  regard 
to  Baptism,  that  any  person  commissioned  to  bap- 
tize may  do  it,  whether  he  himself  be  baptized  or 
no  V* 

Not  to  dwell  too  long  upon  this  theme,  we  can- 
not refrain  from  expressing  our  regret  (with  due 
respect  at  the  same  time  for  those  who  disagree 
with  us)  that  so  many  Churchmen  suffer  them- 
selves to  be  led  away  from  a  principle,  which  we 
deem  fundamental  to  the  Church's  Polity,  and  sanc- 
tioned by  the  consent  of  Prinnitive  Antiquity,  viz., 
that  the  Bishop,  as  the  immediate  representative 
on  earth  of  our  Divine  High  Priest,  is  the  centre 

*  Works,  X.   p.  175. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  127 

and  symbol  of  the  Church's  Unity  ;  and  that  the 
criterion  of  visible  unity  is  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Apostolic  succession,  and  not  the  integrity  of  Bap- 
tism, nor  undeviaiing  adherence  in  all  respects  to 
the  "  one  faith,"  whether  taken  separately  or  con- 
jointly. Some,  with  the  Cyprianists,  make  every 
thing-  turn  on  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  regard 
Orders,  Baptisms,  and  all,  as  rendered  null  and  void 
by  heretical  error. 

We'^have  seen  already  how  inconsistently  Bing- 
ham (for  the  sake  of  making  the  case  of  ancient 
heretical  and  schismatical  Baptisms  parallel  to  that 
of  modern  Lay-Baptisms)  applied  this  principle  to 
the  Anglican  Church,  because  of  its  temporary 
participation  of  the  heretical  errors  of  Papal  Rome, 
and  virtually  annulled  the  Baptisms,  Orders,  and 
Succession  in  that  Church  and  our  own.*  Others, 
with  Mr.  Kelsall,  seem  to  make  the  unity  of  Bap- 
tism the  criterion  of  the  Church's  visible  unity,  and 
thus  set  up  a  standard  which  modern  laxity  and 
irregularity  have  made  it  impossible  to  fix.  The 
Primitive  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  presents  the 
Bishop  as  the  representative  of  the  "  one  Lord,"  as 
the  guardian  of  the  "  one  faith,"  as  the  steward  of 
the  "  one  Baptism  j"  and  thereby  makes  all  other 
unities  dependent  on  that  unit,  and  holds  up  the 
uninterrupted  continuity  of  the  Apostolic  succes- 

"   See  p.  107. 


128  LAY-BAPTISM 

sion  as  the  criterion  and  pledge  of  the  Church's 
unbroken  unity. 

This  is  a  safe  criterion  and  a  sure  pledge  :  this, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  never  can  be,  as  it 
never  has  been,  interrupted.  The  promise  to  the 
Fathers  of  that  sacred  line, — "Lo,  I  am  with  you 
always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world,"  is  unfail- 
ing and  infallible.  Here  only  in  the  system  of  the 
Church  do  we  find  a  visible  centre  of  unity,  which 
is  invariable  amid  all  the  revolutions  and  distur- 
bances to  which  other  parts  of  the  system  are  ever 
liable  ;  and  here  only  do  we  find  a  safe  remedy  for 
all  irregularities  and  disorders.  Does  heresy  in- 
vade the  Church,  and  tempt  men  from  their  "  one 
Lord,"  and  endanger  the  "  one  faith  j"  that  Lord 
has  His  representatives  to  vindicate  His  authority, 
that  faith  its  keepers  to  maintain  its  purity ;  Cran- 
mer,  and  Latimer,  and  Ridley,  and  Laud,  and  others 
not  unknown  to  fame,  all  of  the  Apostolic  line,  stand 
forth  to  purify  without  consuming,  to  reform  with- 
out destroying.  And  now  that  the  unity  of  Bap- 
tism is  in  peril,  by  reason  of  long  continued  and 
almost  prescriptive  laxity  of  discipline  (if  not  of 
doctrine),  our  help  under  God  is  still  to  be  found 
in  the  same  Holy  Brotherhood.  Were  all  the  Bap- 
tisms in  the  land  null  and  void,  the  Bishops  of  the 
Apostolic  succession  have  all  their  transmitted 
powers  unimpaired,  and  can  confer  on  others  both 
lawful  Baptism  and  the  power  to  give  it  in  their 


LAY-BAPTISM.  129 

turn.  Nay  more,  they  can  prevent  by  their  godly 
counsel,  or  (if  need  be)  by  wholesome  discipline, 
all  future  violations  of  Baptismal  unity,  and  once 
more  require  that  they,  who  seek  to  enter  the  Fold 
of  Christ,  shall  come  in  by  that  one  door  which 
Christ  himself  has  opened. 

Could  we  be  persuaded  that  Baptism  is  indeed 
an  essential  qualification  for  Orders,  we  would  be 
doubly  urgent  on  prudential  grounds  that  the 
Church  should  confine  its  administration  to  the 
clergy  of  the  Church,  and  refuse  to  allow  of  any 
other  Baptisms  (even  supposing  Lay-Baptism  valid, 
if  otherwise  regular),  at  least  in  th€  case  of  those 
who  seek  to  become  candidates  for  Orders.  For 
what  guarantee  have  we,  that  those  who  come  from 
the  denominations  around  us  have  received  any 
Baptism  at  all^  or  that  the  prescribed  element  and 
form  have  been  used  1  The  American  editor  of 
Wheatley,  though  he  maintains  the  validity  of  Lay- 
Baptism  in  opposition  to  that  distinguished  author, 
at  the  same  time  makes  the  following  admission  : 
"In  this  country,  where  the  tendency  is  so  strong 
to  undervalue  and  neglect  Baptism,  more  caution 
perhaps  ought  to  be  used  in  ascertaining  whether 
water  has  been  used,  and  whether  the  words  of  the 
Baptismal  formulary  have  been  observed.  The  sect 
of  the  Universalists  have  a  practice  of  dedicating 
their  infants  without  Baptism,  which  uninformed 
persons  have   mistaken  for  the  Sacrament  of  ad- 


130  LAY-BAPTISM. 

mission  into  the  Christian  Church  ,  and  it  is  one  of 
the  unhappy  effects  of  the  prevalence  of  the  Uni- 
tarian or  Socinian  heresy,  that  some  of  its  teach- 
ers, there  is  reason  to  believe,  have  omitted  the 
form  of  Baptism  prescribed  by  our  Saviour." 

This  is  but  a  specimen  of  the  beauties  of  Lay- 
Baptism  !  What  "  caution"  can  avail  against  such 
devices '?  There  is  one  way  of  keeping  down  these 
countless  shoots  of  heresy  and  schism ;  pluck  up 
the  root  from  which  they  spring ;  suppress  that 
irregularity  which  is  the  parent  of  all  others,  the 
irregularity  of  the  administration  ;  confine  all  sa- 
cerdotal ministrations  to  sacerdotal  men  ;  reject 
all  others  as  utterly  null  and  voidj  and  then  your 
*'  caution"  in  guarding  against  the  wiles  of  Satan 
may  give  place  to  care  in  doing  your  own  duty. 

4.  But  it  is  urged,  the  immediate  consequences 
of  rejecting  all  Lay-Baptisms  as  utterly  null  and 
void,  must  prove  fatal  to  the  peace  and  growth  of 
the  Church.  For,  if  carried  out,  it  must  involve 
the  excomm.unication  of  very  many,  who  have  long 
been  regarded  as  members  of  the  Church,  including 
not  a  few  in  her  ministry.  Now,  in  the  first  place, 
this  objection  would  be  equally  valid  against  any 
and  every  reformation  of  inveterate  abuses  whether 
in  Church  or  State.  It  utterly  condemns  Cranmer 
and  all  his  associates  in  the  Anglican  Reformation  ; 
and  might  then  have  been  urged  (as  indeed  it  was) 
by  the  advocates  of  the  Papal  supremacy  against 


LAY-BAPTISM.  131 

their  opponents,  with  as  much  propriety  as  it  is 
now  urged  in  favor  of  Lay-Baptism,  supposing  this 
to  be  an  abuse. 

But  furthermore,  it  does  not  necessarily  follow 
that  the  reformation  of  this  abuse  must  prove  fatal 
to  the  peace  and  growth  of  the  Church.  It  is  not 
for  us.  but  for  the  Bishops  of  the  Church,  to  deter- 
mine how  this  evil  shall  be  abated  or  removed. — 
They  may  see  fit  to  follow  the  example  of  the  Eng- 
lish Bishops  in  1575,  and  discountenance  Lay- 
Baptism  by  every  possible  means  short  of  penal 
prohibitory  enactments.  And  we  doubt  not  that 
the  authority  of  their  judgment  against  it,  duly 
seconded  by  the  instructions  of  the  parochial  clergy, 
would  induce  very  many  who  have  received  Lay- 
Baptism  only,  to  seek  lawful  Baptism  from  its  ap- 
pointed ministers;  so  that  in  process  of  time  cus- 
tom would  become  law,  and  it  would  be  deemed 
just  as  proper  and  necessary  for  lay  converts  from 
non-Episcopal  communities  to  receive  Baptism  on 
entering  the  Church,  as  it  now  is  for  ministers  who 
come  over  from  them  to  [receive  a  true  and  legal 
ordination. 

Since  we  deny  the  absolute  necessity  of  Baptism 
to  salvation,  and  to  legal  and  valid  ordination  like- 
wise, we  are  not  bound  to  be  hasty  or  rash  in  the 
work  of  reform.  Our  anxiety  is  that  the  Sacra- 
ments should  be  administered  as  Christ  ordained ; 
and  that  they  who  seek  them  should  have  the  ben- 


132  LAY-BAPTISM. 

efit  of  true  and  valid  Sacraments  j  that  the  Church 
should  invite  her  children  to  enjoy  all  their  privi- 
leges as  well  as  to  fulfil  all  their  duties ;  and  not, 
while  permitted  to  eat  "the  children's  bread,"  to 
rest  content  with  "  the  crumbs  that  fall  from  their 
Master's  table." 


LAY-BAPTISM.  133 


CHAPTER   IX. 


The  Jlrgument  derived  from  Consequences  against  Lay- 
Baptism.  Sundry  other  Arguments  briefly  dis- 
cussed. 

In  the  foregoing  Chapter  it  was  attempted  to 
set  aside  certain  objections  grounded  upon  the  con- 
sequences, which  some  suppose  must  needs  attend 
the  I'ejection  of  Lay-Baptisms  as  null  and  void.  As 
we  lay  little  stress  upon  such  arguments  either  way, 
two  or  three  objections  of  similar  kind,  which  make 
against  Lay-Baptism,  shall  be  very  briefly  noticed. 

1.  The  principle  that  Lay-Baptism  is  valid,  tends 
to  dissolve  the  unity  of  the  Church  ;  and  that  too, 
whether  such  Lay-Baptism  be  wholly  unauthorized, 
or  authorized  by  the  Bishop  ex  post  facto.  We  have 
already  seen,  that  the  Bishop  is  the  centre  of  unity, 
and  that  the  continuity  of  the  Apostolic  succession 
is  the  pledge  and  criterion  of  visible  unity  j  so  that 
where  there  is  no  Bishop,  nor  Apostolic  succession, 
there  can  be  no  visible  unity,  or  principle  of  visible 
unity.  But  if  Lay-Baptism  be  valid,  then  there  is 
(not  the  principle,  but)  a  principle  of  such  unity 
where  there  is  no  Bishop  j  for  then  are  all  those,  who 
have  been  laically  baptized,  members  of  the  Church, 
since  they  need  not  Baptism  to  enter  it  (unless  there 
be  some  other  door  of  entrance,  e.  g.,  Confirmation, 
12 


134  LAY-BAPTISM. 

or  Communion)  ;  then  are  all  the  non-Episcopal  con- 
gregations around  us  congregations  of  the  Church, 
members  of  the  one  Body,  of  which  Christ  is  the 
H^ad,  although  they  have  severed  all  connection 
between  themselves  and  the  sole  visible  Represent- 
atives of  Christ  on  earth,  and  have  thereby  practi- 
cally denied  and  openly  violated  the  principle  of 
visible  unity,  viz.,  communion  and  connection  with 
the  one  appointed  symbol  and  unchangeable  centre 
of  all  visible  unity. 

Take  a  parallel  case:  Lay-administration  of 
circumcision  we  allow  was  valid.  Now  suppose  a 
company  of  heathens  had  obtained  a  copy  or  copies 
of  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  had  organized  themselves 
into  a  Church,  and  administered  circumcision  at  the 
appointed  tiaie,  and  so  on  ;  bat  still  had  no  com- 
munion or  connection  with  the  High  Priest,  who 
was  to  the  Jews  w^hat  the  Bishop  is  to  Christians,* 
the  Representative  of  Christ,  and  the  symbol  of  vis- 
ible unity  j  would  such  circumcised  men  havebeen 
recognized  as  members  of  the  Church  of  God  % 
Assuredly  not.  Or  to  make  the  case  more  favora- 
ble to  our  opponents  j  had  a  portion  of  the  Jews 
forsaken  the  communion  of  the  High  Priest,  and 
the  Altar  at  Jerusalem,  and  organized  themselves 

*  For  proof  of  this  position,  and  for  a  clear  exhibition  of 
the  principle  of  visible  unity  in  the  Church,  see  Dodwell's 
"Discourse  concerning  the  One  Altar,  and  the  One  Priest- 
hood," passim. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  1 35 

separately,  with  (so  called)  Priests  of  their  own, 
and  maintained  circumcision  together  with  other 
Jewish  rites,  would  those  whom  they  circumcised 
have  been  looked  upon  as  Members  of  the  Church 
of  God,  by  virtue  of  such  circumcision  1  If  so, 
then  were  the  Samaritans  members  of  the  Church, 
which  no  one  will  dare  to  pretend.  Such  circum- 
cision would  have  been  merely  a  cutting  of  the 
flesh,  and  not  the  valid  ministration  of  an  appointed 
rite,  just  as  Lay -Baptism  is  merely  a  washing  of  the 
body.  Nor  can  this  argument  be  turned  against 
us  by  saying  that,  since  such  proselytes,  if  they 
sought  access  to  the  Communion  of  the  High  Priest, 
could  not  be  circumcised  again,  their  previous  ille- 
gal circumcision  would  have  been  received  as  valid  ; 
because  this  is  'plainly  contradicted  by  fact.  "  When 
the  Jews  admitted  a  proselyte  of  another  nation, 
if  he  had  received  Circumcision  {Concision)  they 
v/ere  satisfied  with  drawing  some  drops  of  blood 
from  the  part  usually  circumcised,  which  blood 
was  called  '  the  blood  of  the  Covenant.'  "*  Seeing 
that  the  previous  "  concision"  had  made  an  exact 
compliance  with  the  outward  form  impossible,  they 
obeyed  at  least  the  spirit  of  the  law,  and  sealed^''  the 
Covenant"  with  "  blood,"  which  by  this  very  act, 
and  by  the  name  ("  blood  of  the  covenanf)  which 
they  gave  to  the  blood  extracted,  they  declared  had 

*  Calmet,  Art.  "  Circumcision,*' 


136  LAY-EAPTISM. 

not  been  done  before,  the  outward  form  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding. 

This  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  the  validity  of 
Lay-Baptism  derived  from  its  tendency  to  dissolve 
the  unity  of  the  Church,  cannot  be  met  by  the  as- 
sertion that  such  Baptisms,  ahhough  in  themselves 
no  Baptisms,  become  such  when  authorized  ex  post 
facto  by  the  Bishop,  and  that  the  validity  of  (author- 
ized) Lay-Baptism  is  thus  made  to  consist  with  the 
principle  of  visible  unity ;  for,  as  we  have  already 
shown,  the  Bishop  can  only  in  one  way  authorize 
any  Baptism,  viz.,  by  ordaining  men  to  administer 
it  sacerdotally  and  lawfully.* 

2.  Our  second  objection,  drawn  from  conse- 
quences, to  the  doctrine  of  the  validity  of  Lay-Bap- 
tism, is  that  the  principles  which  support  it  tend  to 
subvert  the  Priesthood^  and  would  therefore,  if  car- 
ried out  universally,  prove  fatal  not  only  to  the 
unity,  but  to  the  very  being,  of  the  Church.  We 
have  already  shown  that  the  principles  and  reasons 
alleged  in  favor  of  Lay-Baptism,  are  equally  con- 
clusive in  favor  of  Lay-ordination,  Lay-consecra- 
tion of  the  Eucharist,  Lay-absolution,  &c.t  Now 
if  all  these  are  to  be  sanctioned,  whenever  there 
exists  a  supposed  necessity  for  lay-administration 
^^  of  them,  it  is  plain  that  the  spirit  of  Korah, 
which  is  rife  enough  in  these  days  of  innate  rights 

*  See  p.  76.  t  See  p.  80. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  137 

(if  not  ideas),  would  soon  overbear  all  order,  and 
supplant  wholly  the  lawful  Priesthood  of  Christ's 
institution.  That  this  would  be  fatal  not  only  to 
the  "unity,  but  to  the  very  being  of  the  Church,  is 
certain  on  St.  Jerome's  rule  (the  rule  of  Scripture 
and  antiquity) — '*  that  is  no  Church,  which  has  no 
Priests."* 

And  even  w^here  this  tendency  is  held  in  check 
and  prevented  from  working  its  natural  results, 
these  lax  principles  do  nevertheless  exercise  a  ma- 
lign influence  upon  the  just  authority  and  the  use- 
fulness of  the  Clergy  5  and  retard  the  spiritual 
growth  of  the  Laity,  by  lowering  in  their  estimation 
the  value  of  the  Sacraments  as  means  of  grace,  and 
thereby  hindering  them  from  the  reception  of  them 
with  that  unquestioning  faith  and  cheerful  obedi- 
ence, which  are  the  conditions  of  God's  promised 
blessing.  And  indeed  all  the  ordinances  of  Christ 
are  deprived  of  due  reverence  by  this  same  cause, 
and  are  rendered  comparatively  inefficacious  by 
reason  of  their  unworthy  treatment. 

3.  Our  third  objection,  derived  from  consequen- 
ces, to  the  principle  that  Lay-Baptism  is  valid,  is 
that  it  encourages  and  perpetuates  dissent.  For  if  we 
allow  the  Baptisms  of  Dissenters  to  be  valid,  al- 
though they  will  not  like  our  rejection  of  their  Or- 

*  "  Nulla  est  Ecclesia,  quae  non  habet  sacerdotes." — 
Hieron.  adv.  Lucif. 

12* 


138  LAY-BAPTISM. 

ders,  they  will  notwithstanding  feel  satisfied  that 
(ourselves  being  the  judges),  they  are  not  so  ill  off, 
as  we  would  fain  persuade  them,  while  they  remain 
estranged  from  the  Communion  of  the  Church. 
For  they  have  logic  enough  to  apply  the  principles 
on  which  some  rest  the  validity  of  their  Baptisms, 
to  their  Orders,  &c.  ;  and  will  naturally  enough 
conclude  that  our  denial  of  validity  to  these  is 
sheer  inconsistency,  arising  out  of  prejudice  or  big- 
otry. And  if  we  undertake  to  tell  them  that  the 
validity  of  their  Baptisms  turns  upon  this,  whether 
they  are  ex  post  facto  ratified  by  the  Bishop,  we  shall 
only  confirm  them  (and  in  this  particular  with  rea- 
son) in  their  otherwise  unreasonable  prejudice 
against  that  sacred  Order,  as  being  arbitrary  des- 
pots, lording  it  over  the  very  Sacraments  of  Christ. 
Satisfied  by  our  admission  on  this  point,  that  all 
their  ordinances  are  at  the  least  valid,  that  they  are 
formally  members  of  the  Church  on  earth,  in  the 
enjoyment  of  valid  preaching,  sacraments,  and  or- 
dinances, they  will  care  less  to  examine  whether 
they  might  not  be  in  some  respects  better  off  else- 
where J  mere  vis  inertice  will  keep  them  where  they 
are. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  with  candor  and  kindness 
too,  we  carry  out  our  principles  to  their  just  con- 
clusions, and  tell  them  that  we  cannot  regard  their 
Baptisms  as  valid,  or  themselves  as  formally  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  of  God,  we  present  to  them  a 


LAY-BAPTISM.  139 

motive  strong  enough  to  induce  them  to  examine 
the  foundations  on  which  they  have  built.  And 
even  if  our  well  meant  v/arning  or  entreaty  go  un- 
heard or  unheeded,  having  spoken  the  whole  truth 
we  have  done  our  duty. 

4.  A  fourth  objection,  that  the  allowance,  of  Lay- 
Baptism  makes  it  impossible  in  very  many  cases  to  as- 
certain the  fact  of  Baptism,  has  been  sufficiently  set 
forth  in  the  preceding  Chapter. 

There  are  sundry  miscellaneous  arguments  urg- 
ed in  favor  of  the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism,  which 
are  perhaps  entitled  to  notice  in  passing. 

1.  The  maxim,  quod  non  dehuit fieri,  factum  valet, 
"what  ought  not  to  have  been  done,  is  valid  when 
done," — is  very  often  applied  to  justify  Lay-Bap- 
tism. We  have  already  attempted  to  show"  that  it 
is  wholly  inapplicable,  since  it  begins  by  taking 
for  granted  what  it  ought  to  prove.* 

2.  The  second  argument  proceeds  upon  an  ar- 
bitrary distinction  between  the  '•'' substance''''  of  a 
Sacrament,  and  its  circumstantial  appendages,  the 
former  being  insisted  on  as  essential  to  its  very  be- 
ing, the  latter  being  regarded  as  affecting  its  well 
being  only.  Hooker  says  :  "  In  writing  and  speak- 
ing of  the  blessed  Sacraments  we  use  for  the  most 
part  under  the  name  of  their  substance  not  only  to 
comprise  that  whereof  they  outwardly  and  sensibly 

*   See  Chapter  III.  p.  28. 


140  LAY-BAPTISM. 

consist,  but  also  the  secret  grace  which  they  sig- 
nify and  exhibit.  *  *  To  complete  the  outward 
substance  of  a  Sacrament,  there  is  required  an  out- 
ward form,  which  form  Sacramental  elements  re- 
ceive from  Sacramental  words.  Hereupon  it  grow- 
eth,  that  many  times  there  are  three  things  said  to 
make  up  the  substance  of  a  Sacrament,  namelj'', 
the  grace  which  is  thereby  ojfFered,  the  element 
which  shadoweth  or  signifieth  grace,  and  the  word 
which  expresseth  what  is  done  by  the  element.  So 
that  whether  we  consider  the  outward  by  itself 
alone,  or  both  the  outward  and  inward  substance 
of  any  Sacrament ;  there  are  in  the  one  respect  but 
two  essential  parts,  and  in  the  other  but  three  that 
concur  to  give  Sacraments  their  full  being."* 

Now  with  all  due  respect  for  the  illustrious  au- 
thor just  quoted,  we  cannot  but  think  that  there  is 
a  false  assumption  in  this  definition  of  the  "  sub- 
stance" or  "  essential"  parts,  of  a  Sacrament,  by 
which  he  seeks  to  class  the  Minister  among  circum- 
stantials^ or  non-essentials.  Granting  that  the  '^  out- 
ward form"  of  a  Sacrament  consists  of  "but  two 
essential  parts,"  viz.,  "  Sacramental  elements"  and 
"Sacramental  words  j"  it  is  surely  not  impertinent 
to  inquire,  what  constitutes  Water  in  Baptism,  or 
Bread  and  Wine  in  the  Eucharist,  "  Sacramental 
elements  V      Are   they  such  by  nature  \      Is  all 

*  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  V.  58. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  141 

bread,  all  wine,  all  water,  ^^  Sacramental  V  If  not, 
what  makes  any  given  portion  of  the  one  or  the 
other  *' Sacramental]"  Is  it  the  intention  of  the 
receiver!  If  so,  a  man  may  make  his  daily  bread 
"  Sacramental."  Or  is  it  the  "blessing"  of  Christ's 
authorized  representative,  and  the  invocation  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  by  one,  who  is  the  proxy  on  earth 
of  Him,  from  whom  with  the  Father  that  Blessed 
Spirit  doth  proceed  %  If  so,  then  a  lawful  Minister, 
if  not  of  "the  outward  substance"  of  the  Sacra- 
ment, is  at  the  least  an  essential  instrument  in  bring- 
ing that  "  outward  substance"  into  being,  since  no 
*'  Sacramental  element"  can  exist  without  his  medi- 
ation. We  might  proceed  to  show  that  the  other 
"  essential  part"  of  the  "  outward  substance"  is 
equally  dependent  for  its  "  SacramentaV  character 
upon  Sacerdotal  agency  j  but  we  deem  it  unneces- 
sary. 

We  close  this  topic  with  another  view  of  it  in 
the  words  of  Mr.  Lawrence  :  "  The  Baptism,  which 
He"  (Christ)  '*  appointed,  is  certainly  to  be  known 
only  by  the  law  which  He  has  made  concerning  it, 
and  this  law  is  in  His  Commission  to  His  Apostles, 
where  it  is  plain,  that  Christ's  Baptism  has  three 
essential  parts  in  its  ministration  ]  the  authorized 
Baptizer  in  the  Apostolic  succession  ^  the  matter, 
water ;  and  the  form  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity. 
These  essentials  are  all  merely  positive,  nothing 
moral :  they  w^ere  all  instituted   by  one  authority. 


142  LAY-BAPTISM, 

and  all  together  at  the  same  time  j  not  one  or  two 
of  them  separate  from  another ;  and  they  are  all 
of  equal  duration,  and  consequently  of  the  same  ne- 
cessity and  obligation  ;  so  that  if  one  of  them  be 
wanting,  the  remainder  cannot  be  the  instituted 
Baptism,  because  it  was  not  appointed  separate 
from  that  other  part  which  is  wanting.  For  exam- 
ple ;  a  Priest  baptizing  only  with  water,  without 
the  form,  does  not  administer  Christ's  instituted 
Baptism,  because  Christ  did  not  appoint  Baptism 
without,  but  with  the  form.  Again  ;  a  Priest  bap- 
tizing with  water,  and  another  form  of  Avords,  in- 
stead of  the  instituted  form,  does  not  administer 
Christ's  Baptism,  because  Christ  never  instituted 
Baptism  with  such  a  form.  And  lastly.  Baptism, 
with  pronouncing  the  form  of  words  in  the  name 
of  the  Trinity,  when  done  by  a  person  who  is  not 
one  of  those  whom  Christ  promised  to  be  with  Bap- 
tizing^ is  none  of  Christ's  instituted  Baptism  ;  for 
He  never  appointed  any  Baptism  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  to  be  done  by  one  whom  He  did  not  pro- 
mise to  concur  with  J  that  is,  he  never  instituted 
unauthorized  Lay-Baptism.  And  therefore  His  in- 
stituted Baptism,  which  is  the  supernatural  means 
of  supernatural  graces  and  benefits,  is  only  that 
w^hich  must  be  administered  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity  by  one  bearing  the  Apostolic  Commission."* 

*   Sacerdotal  Powers,  c.  V.  p.  108. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  143 

3.  Some  have  argued  that  the  custom  in  the 
Primitive  Church  of  sending  the  Eucharistic  ele- 
ments home  to  the  sick  by  any  convenient  messen- 
ger, justifies  lay-administration  of  Baptism.  It  is 
enough  to  say  that  the  conseo'ation  of  ihe'Elements, 
not  the  delivery  of  them,  requires  and  involves 
Priestly  agency.  In  Baptism,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  application  of  the  consecrated  Element  is  also 
a  Priestly  act,  inasmuch  as  the  recipient  is  there- 
by consecrated  to  God,  and  the  Covenant  visibly 
sealed. 

4.  It  has  been  held  at  divers  times  by  many, 
and  is  still  held  by  some,  that  of  all  the  requisite 
qualifications  for  lawful  ministration  in  holy  things, 
personal  holiness  is  the  most  essential ;  and  that 
any  true  Christian  may  therefore  validly  SidmiuisteT 
Baptism,  seeing  that  his  character  sanctifies  the 
act.  As  the  Church  has  definitively  ruled  this 
point,  we  shall  not  discuss  it  here  ;  but  refer  our 
readers  to  the  26th  Article,  whose  title  runs  thus, 
— "  Of  the  unworthiness  of  the  Ministers^  vjhich  hin- 
ders not  the  effect  of  the  Sacraments.''^ 


144  LAY-BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER   X 


The  Erroneous  JYotions  of  certain  Fathers  shown  to  he 
the  Source  of  Lay- Baptism.  It  progressed  pari 
PASSU  with  Error  and  Corruption^  until  it  was  es- 
tablished by  Papal  Sanction, 

We  have  seen  already  that  the  earliest  of  the 
Fathers,  who  notices  or  recognizes  Lay-Baptism  in 
any  way  whatever,  is  TertuUian  ;  and  that  he  holds 
it  forth,  not  practically  as  a  fact,  or  existing  cus- 
tom of  the  Church,  but  theoreticall}^,  as  a  logical 
consequence  of  his  own  private  conceit  of  the  in- 
herent Priesthood  of  every  Christian.  And  this 
vain  notion  of  an  honest  but  wild  enthusiast,  if  not 
fanatic,  is  historically  the  original  source  of  Lay- 
Baptism,  and  of  all  the  evils  and  irregularities  con- 
nected with  it. 

I  do  not  mean  to  assert  that  either  TertuUian 
alone,  or  the  notion  referred  to  alone,  can  be  re- 
garded as  the  sole  cause  and  ground  of  the  ulti- 
mate recognition  and  allowance  of  the  validity  of 
Lay-Baptism  in  cases  of  necessity.  Other  agents 
and  other  principles  had  doubtless  a  much  larger 
share  of  influence  in  compassing  this  end.  For 
TertuUian's  acknowledged  singularity  and  want  of 
judgment  would  have  prevented  the  adoption  of  a 
practice  upon  his  mere  opinion  or  authority,  not- 


LAY-BAPTISM.  145 

withstanding  his  ability,  learning,  and  popularity 
as  a  writer.  And  the  absurdity  of  the  principle  on 
which  he  rested  that  opinion,  or  at  least  its  want 
of  Scriptural  and  Apostolic  sanction,  would  have 
hindered  its  growth,  until  it  had  at  length  perished 
through  oblivion. 

It  is  true  that  this  selfsame  principle  of  the  in- 
herent Priesthood  was  afterwards  recognized  by 
other  Fathers,  whose  judgment  was  in  general  more 
sound  than  Tertullian's.  Thus  St.  Jerome  speaks 
of  a  sacerdotium  laici^  or  lay  Priesthood  j  by  which 
however  he  may  have  meant  no  more  than  is  meant 
in  holy  Scripture,  where  all  Christians  are  called 
relatively  to  unbelievers,  "a  holy  Priesthood,  to 
offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God  by 
Jesus  Christ  j"  and  again,  "  a  chosen  generation,  a 
royal  Priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  peo- 
ple."* But  Tertullian's  principle  certainly  did  re- 
appear in  another  shape,  when  Lay-Baptism  was 
afterwards  justified  on  the  ground  (taken  both  by 
Optatus  and  St.  Jerome)  ut  accipit  quis,  ita  et  dare 
potest^  "  what  a  man  has  received,  that  he  can  give." 
For  this  amounts  to  saying  that  Baptism  gives  a 
man  the  power  of  Baptizing,  i.  e.,  makes  him  so 
far  a  Priest. 

This  principle,  however,  carried  with  it  little 
weight,  and  probably  never  would  have  procured 

*    1  Peter  2:  5,  9. 
13 


146  LAY-BAPTISM. 

general  toleration,  much  less  formal  sanction,  for 
Lay-Baptism,  even  in  case  of  extreme  necessity,  at 
any  period  of  the  Church's  history.  Another  prin- 
ciple, far  more  plausibly  supported  both  by  Scrip- 
ture and  Antiquity,  and  (wherever  and  whenever 
received)  sure  to  exercise  a  controlling  influence, 
was  the  chief  instrument  in  giving  to  this  doctrine 
an  onward  motion,  which  has  carried  it  forward  to 
the  present  time  by  force  of  that  early  impetus, 
long  after  the  moving  power  was  itself  withdrawn. 
The  principle,  to  which  I  refer,  is  the  absolute  ne- 
cessity of  Baptism  to  salvation. 

That  this  was  not  Primitive  Catholic  doctrine 
we  have  elsewhere  shown.*  That  it  is  not  the 
doctrine  of  the  Anglican  and  American  Churches 
is  sufficiently  shown  by  their  determination  that 
the  Sacraments  are  ''^ generally^''  (not  absolutely  and 
always)  "  necessary  to  salvation."! 

On  the  other  hand  we  have  abundant  proof  that 
the  dogma  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  Baptism  to 
salvation  and  that  of  the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism 
are  intimately  and  historically  connected,  so  that 
we  are  warranted  in  regarding  their  relation  as  that 
of  cause  and  eiFect.  The  admission  of  the  learned 
Dr.  Cave,  himself  an  advocate  of  the  validity  of 
Lay-Baptism,  is  directly  to  the  point.  Speaking  of 
the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism,  in  connection  with 

*  See  Chapter  VIII.  p.  118.  f  See  the  Catechism. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  147 

Tertullian  and  its  later  advocates,  he  says  :  "  This 
(Lay-Baptism),  without  question,  arose  from  an 
opinion  they  had  of  the  absolute  indispensable  ne- 
cessity of  Baptism,  without  which  they  scarce 
thought  a  man's  future  condition  could  be  safe  ; 
and  that  therefore  it  was  better  it  should  be  had 
from  any,  than  to  depart  this  life  without  it;  for, 
excepting  the  case  of  Martyrs  (whom  they  thought 
sufficiently  qualified  for  heaven,  by  being  baptized 
in  their  own  hlood — insisting  upon  a  two-fold  Bap- 
tism, one  of  Water  in  time  of  peace,  another  of 
Blood  in  time  of  persecution,  answerable  to  the 
Water  and  Blood  that  flowed  out  of  our  Saviour's 
side — excepting  these),  they  reckoned  no  man 
could  be  saved  without  being  baptized,  and  cared 
not  much  in  cases  of  necessity,  so  they  had  it,  how 
they  came  by  it."* 

It  may  be  worth  observing  that  this  doctrine  of 
Baptism  in  their  own  blood,  being  in  the  case  of 
martyrs  an  equivalent  substitute  for  regular  Bap- 
tism in  water,  is  traced  by  Binghamf  to  Tertullian 
and  his  contemporary  Origen,  both  equally  rich 
in  singular  conceits.  From  them  it  was  borrowed 
by  subsequent  Fathers,  who  sought  to  reconcile  the 
salvation  of  such  catechumens  as  had  been  depriv- 
ed by  necessity  of  desired  Baptism,  and  had  proved 

*  Primitive  Christianity,  p.  191,  7th  ed.  London. 
t  See  "Antiquities,"  X.  11,  20. 


148  LAY-BAPTISVI. 

their  faith  by  martyrdom,  with  the  extreme  dogma 
of  the  absolute  necessity  of  Baptism  to  future  happi- 
ness. That  doctrine,  however,  was  never  recog- 
nized by  the  Church.  The  Primitive  and  Catholic 
doctrine  may  be  fairly  stated  in  Bingham's  words 
(applied  by  him  to  the  judgment  of  a  particular 
Father),  that  ''^  faith  and  repentance^  joined  with  a 
desire  of  Baptism^  were  sufficient  to  save  a  man  in  the 
article  of  necessity^  when  there  was  otherwise  no  op- 
portunity to  receive  it.^''* 

Had  St.  Austin,  "  that  hard  Father,"  whose  bet- 
ter nature  prompted  at  times  admissions  like  the 
foregoing,  always  taught  consistently  therewith, 
Lay-Baptism  would  probably  never  have  been  for- 
mally sanctioned  in  the  Western  Church.  In  the 
earlier  part  of  his  career  he  was  disposed  to  great- 
er leniency  in  judging  of  the  condition  of  those, 
who  lost  Baptism  through  invincible  necessity. 
But  in  the  progress  of  his  controversy  with  the  Pe- 
lagians, as  he  matured  his  system,  he  locked  the 
door  of  heaven  against  all  the  unbaptized  of  every 
class  and  condition,  except  "  the  believer  among 
the  worshippers  of  the  true  God  before  the  time  of 
Christ,  and  likewise  the  unbaptized  martyrs."! 

*   Antiquities,  X.  II,  21. 

t  Wiggers'  "Historical  Presentation  of  Augustinism  and 
Felagianism,"  translated  by  Prof.  Emerson  ;  c.  5,  wherein 
*'  the  Pelagian  doctrine  on  Baptism,"  and  ''  Augustine's  doc- 
trine" on  the  same  are  contrasted. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  140 

BiDgham,  after  stating-  that  some  of  the  later 
Greek  Fathers,  who  "  spoke  the  most  favorably  of" 
the  case  of  infants  dying  unbaptized,  "  would  only 
venture  to  assign  them  a  middle  state,  neither  in 
heaven  nor  hell,"  further  states  that  "  this  opinion  of 
a  middle  state  never  found  any  acceptance  among 
the  Latins.  For  they  make  but  two  places  to  re- 
ceive men  after  the  day  of  judgment,  heaven  and 
hell,  and  concluded,  that  since  children,  for  want 
of  washing  away  original  sin,  could  not  be  admit- 
ted into  heaven,  they  must  of  necessity  be  in  hell, 
there  being  no  third  place  between  them.  St.  Aus- 
tin frequently  insists  upon  this  against  the  Pela- 
gians, who  distinguish  betw^een  the  kingdom  of  God 
and  eternal  life,  asserting,  '  that  children  dying  un- 
baptized, might  be  admitted  to  eternal  life  and  sal- 
vation, though  not  to  the  kingdom  of  God  ;'  whom 
he  opposes  after  this  manner  in  his  books  about  the 
Merits  and  Remission  of  Sin ;  '  though,'  he  says, 
'  the  condemnation  of  those  shall  be  greater,  who 
to  original  sin  add  actual  sins  of  their  own,  and 
every  man's  condemnation  so  much  the  greater, 
by  how  much  greater  sin  he  commits  ;  yet  original 
sin  does  not  only  separate  from  the  kingdom  of 
God,  whither  children,  dying  without  the  grace  of 
Christ,  cannot  enter,  as  the  Pelagians  themselves 
confess ;  but  also  it  excludes  them  from  eternal  life 
and  salvation,  which  can  be  no  other  than  the  king- 
13* 


150  LAY-BAPTISM. 

dom  of  God,  into  which  our  communion  with  Christ 
alone  can  introduce  us,'  "  &c.* 

It  deserves  to  be  noted  that  Tertullian,  the  Fa- 
ther of  Lay-Baptism,  in  one  of  the  two  passages  in 
which  he  sanctions  it  distinctly  recognizes  the  ab- 
solute necessity  of  Baptism  to  salvation,  and  con- 
nects this  recognition  with  the  allowance  of  lay- 
baptizing  in  case  of  necessity  in  such  a  way  as  to 
show  that  they  were  inseparably  associated  in  his 
own  mind.  After  saying  that  "  it  ought  to  suffice 
them  (laymen)  to  use  this  power  (of  baptizing)  in 
necessities,"  he  declares  that  "  in  this  case  (of  ne- 
cessity) he  would  be  guilty  of  a  man's  destruction, 
that  omitted  to  do  what  he  lawfully  might."!  Here 
it  is  more  than  implied  that  loss  of  Baptism  involves 
*'  destruction"  or  final  perdition  ;  and  it  is  obvious 
that  this  consideration  is  urged  as  justifying  the 
practice  of  Lay-Baptism  in  cases  of  necessity.  And 
in  like  manner  we  think  it  could  be  shown,  did  our 
limits  allow,  that  all  the  advocates  of  Lay-Baptism 
proceeded  upon  the  same  hypothesis,  until  at  last 
St.  Austin,  Aristotle's  more  than  rival  in  the  Em- 
pire of  Mind,  riveted  firmly  upon  the  Western 
Church  both  the  doctrine  of  the  absolute  necessity 
of  Baptism  to  salvation,  and  the  validity  of  Lay- 
Baptism,  where  no  other  Baptism  could  be  had. 

*  Anliquities,  X.  2,  24. 

f  See  the  whole  passage  on  p.  38. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  151 

And  indeed,  when  we  consider  the  awful  and 
unbending  rigor  of  St.  Austin's  doctrine,  especially 
as  regards  infants,  who  must  often  lose  Baptism,  if 
Lay-Baptism  had  been  wholly  forbidden ;  we  can- 
not wonder  that  even  his  lion  heart  quailed  before 
the  frightful  consequences  of  his  unsparing  princi- 
ples, and  that  he  chose  to  sanction  a  deviation  from 
the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  Church  Catholic, 
or  even  from  Christ's  own  law  and  institution,  ra- 
ther than  to  consign  to  irremediable  and  inevita- 
ble wo  so  many  innocent  and  helpless  victims. 
And  if,  when  called  upon  to  choose  between  the 
consigning  unbaptized  infants  and  believers  to  eter- 
nal death  only  for  their  want  of  the  "  washing  of 
regeneration,"  and  the  relaxing  the  rule  in  regard 
to  the  lawful  administrator,  St.  Austin  deemed  the 
latter  the  less  and  preferable  evil ;  it  is  no  wonder 
that  minds  less  deeply  imbued  with  the  love  of  or- 
der, and  more  prone  by  nature  to  tenderness  and 
pity,  gladly  ratified  his  choice  and  followed  his  au- 
thority. 

I  do  not  mean  to  affirm  that  the  absolute  neces- 
sity of  Baptism  was  the  only  principle,  besides  that 
of  Tertullian  already  noticed,  which  contributed  to 
the  more  general  allowance  and  finally  to  the  au- 
thoritative sanction  of  Lay -Baptism  in  the  Western 
Church.  Other  principles  had  some  share  in  bring- 
ing about  this  issue.  It  is  plain,  for  instance,  that 
the  Council  of  Eliberis  was  partly  influenced  by  the 


152  LAY-BAPTISM. 

notion  (which  prevailed  more  or  less   throughout 
the  West  from  the  time  of  the  Cyprianic  contro- 
versy) that  merely  personal  qualifications  in  the 
Minister  affect  the  validity  of  his  ministrations  j  so 
that  the  want  of  personal  fitness,  on  the  one  hand, 
vitiates   a  lawful  commission,  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  possession  of  personal  fitness  is  no  bad 
substitute  for  such  commission.*     It  is  obvious  too 
that  St.  Austin  himself  was  tempted,  in  his  contro- 
versy with  the  Donatists,  to  assert  the  validity  of 
Lay-Baptism,    in    order  to  prove  that,   even    ad- 
mitting the  charges  of  the  Donatists  against  the  Or- 
ders of  the  Catholics,  their  Baptisms  need  not  be 
repeated. f     Still,  these   considerations  were  all,  I 
think,  subordinate  to  the  one  before  insisted  upon, 
viz.,  the  absolute  necessity  of  Baptism  to  salvation. 
We  have  already  ascribed  to  St.  Austin,  the 
double  honor  of  establishing  in  the  West  the  two- 
fold error  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  Baptism,  and 
of  the  consequent  validity  of  Lay-Baptism,  where 
no  better  can  be  had.     None,  who   are   tolerably 
versed  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  will  think  that 
we  have  exaggerated  his  influence,  or  ascribed  too 
much  to  his  agency,  in  this  matter.     Be  this,  how- 
ever, as  it  may,  it  is  historically  certain  that  from 
his  time  onward,  both  the  dogmas  in  question  be- 
came more  and  more  prevalent  in  the  West  j  until, 

*  See  for  evidence  of  this,  p.  46,  ss.  f  See  p.  59. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  153 

at  length,  Baptism  administered  by  women  "  was 
expressly  confirmed  by  a  decree  of  Pope  Urban  the 
Second,  in  the  latter  end  of  the  eleventh  century  j"* 
and  finally  this  rubric  or  direction  was  introduced 
by  the  Church  of  Rome  into  her  Ritual  of  Baptism  ; 
**  that  though  the  ordinary  Minister  of  Baptism  be 
only  a  Priest  or  a  Deacon,  yet,  in  case  of  necessity,  it 
may  be  done  not  only  by  a  layman  or  woman,  that  is 
a  Catholic,  but  by  a  Jew,  a  Pagan,  or  an  infidel."! 
This  Bingham  styles  "  one  of  the  novelties  of 
Popery."  Surely  not  more  "  one  of  the  novelties  of 
Popery,"  than  Baptism  by  Catholic  laymen  is  "  one 
of  the  novelties"  of  Tertullian,  Jerome,  and  Au- 
gustine. To  give  the  Pope  his  due,  I  would  rather 
call  it  one  of  the  consistencies  of  Popery  ;  for  it  might 
be  shown  with  little  difficulty  that  it  is  the  logical 
result  of  the  principles  upon  which  Lay-Baptism  is 
for  the  most  part  founded.  But  at  all  events,  one 
fact  is  demonstrably  certain  ;  that  Papal  Rome  ma- 
tured, legalized,  and  established  the  principle  and 
practice  of  Lay-Baptism  j  and  that  if  any  sort  of 
Catholicity  can  be  claimed  for  it,  it  is  that  sort  only 
which  maybe  fairly  claimed  for  Purgatory,  Transub- 
stantiation.  Indulgences,  &c.,  viz..  Papal  or  Roman 
Catholicity,  which  is  no  Catholicity  at  all. 

*  Potter  on  Church  Government,  p.  235. 

t  Bingham,  Schol.  Hist.  c.  I.  §  24.  See  Note  (S)  for 
proof  that  the  Church  of  Rome  holds  the  absolute  necessity 
of  Baptism  in  connection  with  the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism. 


154  LAY-BAPTISM. 

And  if  to  Rome  belongs  the  honor  of  develop- 
ing and  maturing  the  germ  of  Lay-Baptism,  re- 
ceived from  the  hands  of  St.  Augustine  j  to  Rome 
likewise  must  we  ascribe  the  merit  of  propagating 
it,  and  particularly  of  giving  it  root  in  English  soil, 
whenee  it  has  been  transplanted  to  this  Western 
land.  At  the  period  of  the  Anglican  Reformation, 
so  wide  was  its  prevalence  and  so  sturdy  its  growth 
(thanks  to  the  fostering  care  of  Papal  patronage 
and  the  congenial  nourishment  of  ecclesiastical 
corruption),  that  not  even  when  Primitive  order 
had  been  in  some  measure  restored  and  Primitive 
purity  in  a  good  degree  revived,  did  the  Anglican 
Bishops  deem  it  wise  to  venture  further  towards 
its  extinction,  than  to  withdiaw  from  it  the  legal 
sanction,  by  help  of  which  it  throve.  So  that  it 
survived,  nay,  still  survives  the  other  Papal  corrup- 
tions with  which  it  had  grown  up,  and  which  were 
long  ago  plucked  up  by  the  roots  and  cast  out  to 
wither  and  die. 

We  are  thus  express  and  explicit  in  declaring, 
what  is  surely  manifest,  that  Lay-Baptism  is  a  rem- 
nant of  Popery,  not  to  insinuate  that  its  advocates 
among  us  are  Papists  in  disguise,  but  to  anticipate 
and  bar  the  charge  if  attempted  to  be  made  against 
ourselves.  It  is  now  (as  it  seems  to  have  been 
when  Lawrence  wrote)  the  fashion  with  certain 
theologues  to  brand  every  doctrine,  that  suits  them 
not,  as  Popish  ;  and  when  argument  fails  them,  and 


LAY'BAPTISM.  155 

they  have  reached  after  a  short  stage  their  wit's 
end,  to  drown  their  adversary's  voice,  and  silence 
his  reasoning,  by  raising  against  him  the  clamorous 
cry  of  "  Papist.''''  Lest  any  should  seek  to  try  this 
sort  of  tactics  in  the  present  case,  we  quote  the 
following  passage  from  Mr.  Lawrence's  conclusive 
reply  to  the  charge,  that  in  opposing  Lay-Baptism 
he  had  made  a  step  towards  Rome. 

"  This  is  strange  even  to  a  wonder  and  an  as- 
tonishment ;  every  body  that  can  tell  what  corrupt 
Popery  is,  knows  that  the  notion  of  Lay-Baptism's 
being  valid,  is  one  of  the  particular  tenets  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  And  how  the  denying  of  any 
validity  in  such  Baptisms,  is  making  a  step  towards 
(when  it  is  directly  contrary  to)  Popery,  is  incon- 
ceivable. But  some  people  may  find  a  way  to 
make  this  Popery,  by  a  new  maxim,  which  our  fore- 
fathers were  ignorant  of,  and  that  is  this;  every 
thing  that  is  destructive  of  Heresy^  Schism^  Fanati- 
cism, Libertinism,  Deism  and  Atheism,  is  Popery. 
This  is  some  of  the  new  light  that  is  hung  out  to 
us  in  these  days  of  darkness  !  By  this  we  are  en- 
abled to  discover  secrets  which  before  lay  hid  ;  and 
to  free  ourselves  from  that  dismal  slavery  and  bon- 
dage, wherein  the  Priests  held  us,  while  we  were 
destitute  of  this  all-discovering  light !  By  this,  So- 
cinians  deterrr>ine  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  to  be 
Popery ;  Schismatics,  that  the  necessity  of  con- 
stant communion  with  the  Church  is  Poperj^  j  Fa- 


156  LAY-BAPTISM. 

natics,  that  all  decency  and  order,  and  proper  cer- 
emonies in  divine  worship,  are  Popery  ;  Libertines, 
that  all  restraining  of  our  fleshly  lusts,  all  obedi- 
ence and  submission  to  spiritual  superiors,  are  Po- 
pery J  Deists,  that  all  revealed  religion  is  an  inven- 
tion of  Popery ;  and  Atheists,  that  the  being  of  a 
God,  and  his  providence,  are  Popery.  Every  one 
of  these  calls  what  he  dislikes.  Popery  ;  and  by 
this  means,  works  so  far  upon  the  imaginations  of 
simple  people  as  to  make  them  dislike  and  hate  it 
too,  because  it  is  Popery !  For  you  must  know, 
that  Popery  was  once  so  dreadfully  mischievous  to 
us,  that  ever  since,  if  the  name  of  Popery  be  but 
given  to  the  best  of  things,  'tis  an  effectual  way  to 
make  some  who  know  nothing  of  the  matter,  abhor 
and  loathe,  what  'tis  their  duty  to  love,  reverence 
and  esteem."* 

So  much  for  the  cry  of  "  Popery."  There  is, 
however,  a  newly  imported  substitute  for  that  anti- 
quated makeshift  of  nonplussed  reasoners,  which 
is  likely  to  supersede  its  forerunner  in  frequency  of 
use,  if  not  in  efficacy  :  I  mean  the  charge  of  *'  Ox- 
fordism,"  which  is  applied  with  as  little  discrimi- 
nation, and  with  far  greater  absurdity,  than  the  old 
and  stale  imputation  of  "  Popery."  Substitute 
"  Oxfordism"  in  the  above  passage  for  "  Popery," 
and  it  now  holds  good :  indeed  the  terms  are  by 
some  held  to  be  synonymous. 

*  "  Sacerdotal  Powers,"  c.  5,  p.  125. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  157 

Now  in  brief  we  utterly  disown  Oxford-isr/z,  and 
every  other  ism  (except  Catholicism)  ;  that  is,  every 
thing  in  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  any  and  every 
party,  which  is  peculiar  to  it  alone.  While,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  refuse  to  abate  one  jot  or  tittle  of 
fixed  and  eternal  truths,  because,  forsooth,  certain 
fallible  individuals  or  parties  hold  (if  so  it  be)  those 
Catholic  truths  in  combination  with  private  errors  ; 
or  because  (a  more  frequent  case  perhaps)  they 
are  falsely  represented  as  holding  them  in  such 
connexion  by  prejudiced  or  incompetent  witnesses. 
Our  principles  are  as  old  again  as  even  ancient  and 
venerable  Oxford  herself  j  and,  if  Oxford  have,  in 
any  particular  of  doctrine  or  discipline,  swerved 
(as  some  allege)  from  "the  old  paths"  (a  question 
foreign  to  our  inquiry),  it  is  our  right  and  privilege, 
as  catholic  churchmen,  to  appeal  from  her  (as  in 
the  present  case  we  do  from  some  among  ourselves) 
to  that  common  tribunal,  recognized  by  the  Angli- 
can Church  no  less  than  by  our  own,  the  Word  of 
God,  interpreted  by  Apostolic  and  Catholic  An- 
tiquity. 


H 


158  LAY-BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER    XI. 

The  early  Anglican  Reformers  retained  the  Papal  Doc- 
trine^ both  as  to  the  absolute  necessity  of  Baptism^ 
and  the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism.  The  Anglican 
Church  gradually  returned  to  the  Primitive  Doc- 
trine in  both  respects^  and  conformed  thereto  her 
authorized  Standards  a7id  Formularies. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Church  of  Rome,  under 
Papal  auspices,  attempted  by  her  absolute  and  in- 
fallible authority  to  convert  into  Catholic  doctrines 
the  private  opinions  of  St.  Augustine,  and  certain 
other  Fathers,  respecting  the  absolute  necessity  of 
Baptism  to  salvation  and  the  validity  of  Lay-Bap- 
tism. It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  Cranmer  and 
his  associates,  however  faithful  in  the  study  of 
the  Holy  Scripture  by  the  light  of  Primitive  Anti- 
quity, should  presently  rid  themselves  of  each  and 
all  of  the  many  errors  and  corruptions,  which  ages 
of  submissive  ignorance  on  the  one  hand,  and  of 
active  and  intriguing  despotism  on  the  other,  had 
sanctioned  and  sanctified.  It  is  rather  a  miracle 
that  they  did  so  nearly  purge  and  cleanse  the  chan- 
nel of  truth  from  all  its  accumulated  impurities, 
and  permit  the  pure  stream  to  flow  down  from  the 
fountain  almost  wholly  free  from  pollution  by  the 
admixture  of  foreign   and  incongruous  elements. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  169 

When  we  allow  then  that  the  early  Anglican  Re- 
formers in  this  one  matter  of  Lay-Baptism  still  re- 
tained a  portion  of  Papal  error,  we  do  but  acknow- 
ledge that  they  were  neither  Popes,  nor  Angels,  but 
fallible  men,  albeit  in  most  things  "heaven-direct- 
ed" for  the  Church's  good. 

Nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  the  two 
dogmas  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  Baptism  and  of 
the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism,  which  were  contem- 
porary in  their  origin,  progress  an  destablishment, 
continued  after  the  Reformation  to  exist  together 
by  the  allowance  of  the  first  Reformers,  until  they 
gradually  declined  and  finally  died  together.  "  In 
the  formularies  of  faith  put  forth  during  the  reigu 
of  Henry  VIIL,  the  Church  of  England  retained  the 
same  belief  as  the  Church  of  Rome  respecting  the 
absolute  necessity  of  Baptism  to  salvation,  though, 
in  somewhat  modified  terms,  in  the  'Necessary 
Doctrine  and  Erudition  for  any  Christian  Man.' — 
Nor  did  she  positively  express  her  dissent  from  it, 
until  the  Hampton  Court  Conference  in  1604.  The 
practice  of  Lay-Baptism,  which  seems  to  have 
arisen  out  of  this  belief,  was  also,  till  then,  sanction- 
ed by  the  rubric  prefixed  to  the  service  for  admin- 
istering private  Baptism.  But  at  the  revision  of 
the  book  of  Common  Prayer  which  then  took  place, 
this  rubric  was  altered,  and  from  that  period  the 
custom  of  Lay-Baptism  has  been  disallowed  by  the 
Church  of  England.     Coeval  with  this  change  in 


160  LAY-BAPTISM. 

the  rubric  was  the  addition  to  the  Church  Cate- 
ciiisra  of  that  part  relating  to  the  Sacraments,  in 
which  the  Church  of  England,  for  the  first  time, 
asserts  that  Baptism  is  only  generally^  not  absolute- 
ly, necessary  to  salvation  ;  or,  as  she  expresses  it  in 
the  Baptismal  service  for  those  of  riper  years, 
which  was  added  to  the  Prayer-book  after  the  Con- 
ference in  1661,  'Ye  perceive  the  great  necessity 
of  this  Sacrament,  where  it  may  be  had.''  "*  For 
documentary  evidence  that  Cranmer  and  his  as- 
sociates held  with  Rome  that  Baptism  is  absolutely 
necessary,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  publication 
from  which  the  foregoing  extract  is  made.  Our 
limits  require  that  we  confine  ourselves  to  an  his- 
torical examination  of  the  several  changes  in  the 
Baptismal  services  respecting  the  administrator  of 
Baptism. 

The  Baptismal  Formularies,  which  we  have  to 
examine,  are  those  of  the  First  and  Second  Service- 
books  of  Edward  VI.,  the  Common  Prayer-book  of 
1604,  and  ihat  of  1661.  The  First  Service-book  of 
Edward  VI.  was  adopted  by  Convocation,  sanction- 
ed by  Parliament,  and  published  A.  D.  1549.  To- 
ward the  close  of  A.  D.  1550,  Cranmer  and  the 
Bishops  undertook  a  revision  of  this  book,   which 

*  "  The  order  of  Baptism,  both  public  and  private,  ac- 
cording to  the  use  of  the  United  Church  of  England  and 
Ireland,  illustrated,  %ic.,"  by  the  Rev.  T.  M.  Fallow,  A.  M. 
(Introd.  p.  30.)      London,  1838. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  161 

resulted  in  the  adoption  and  publication  of  the  Se- 
cond Service-book,  A.  D.  1552.*  No  change  was 
made  under  Elizabeth  in  regard  to  the  provisions 
respecting  the  administrator  of  Baptism. 

On  the  accession  of  James  L,  thePuritans  sought 
and  obtained  from  him  a  conference  between  several 
leading  dignitaries  of  the  Church,  and  a  committee 
of  their  own  theologians,  the  King  himself  acting 
as  umpire,  for  the  adjustment  of  sundry  differences. 
This  conference  was  held  at  Hampton  Court  Palace, 
A.  D.  1G04,  and  resulted  in  several  alterations  of 
the  Liturgy,  one  of  which  (as  shall  presently  ap- 
pear) concerns  our  inquiry. | 

After  the  Eestoration,  Charles  XL,  in  the  hope 
of  satisfying  the  Presbyterians,  appointed  a  com- 
misssion  of  Divines,  selected  equally  from  the  two 
contending  parties,  to  revise  the  book  of  Common 
Prayer.  This  is  known,  from  its  place  of  meeting, 
as  the  Savoy  Conference,  and  was  held  A.  D.  1661. 
Although  nothing  was  done  by  the  Conference  it- 
self, the  Convocation,  which  was  sitting  at  the 
time,  reported  to  Parliament  various  proposed  al- 
terations in  the  Liturg)?-  (the  Baptismal  Service  in- 

*  See  "  The  Two  Books  of  Common  Prayer,  set  forth  by 
authority  of  Parliament  in  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI., 
compared  with  each  other,  and  edited  by  Edward  Cardwell, 
D.  D."     (Preface.) 

t  See  Dr.  Cardwell's  "  History  of  Conferenees,"  c,  3, 
and  Fallow's  "  Order  of  Baptism,"  p.  162. 

14,* 


162  LAY-BAPTISM. 

eluded),  which  were  formally  sanctioned  and  pub- 
lished.* The  attenipt  to  revise  the  Liturgy  in^the 
reign  of  William  and  Mary,  proved  abortive,  so 
that  it  has  remained  unchanged  since  the  revision 
of  1661. 

All  the  various  editions  and  revisions  of  the 
Liturgy  agree  in  confining  public  ministration  of 
Baptism  to  the  Priest  or  lawful  Minister.  In  re- 
gard to  "  them  that  he  baptized  in  private  houses  in 
time  of  necessity ^^^  both  the  Prayer-books  of  Edward 
VI.  appoint  as  follows  : 

"  The  pastors  and  curates  shall  oft  admonish 
the  people,  that  they  defer  not  the  Baptism  of  in- 
fants any  longer  than  the  Sunday,  or  other  holy 
day  next  after  the  child  be  born,  unless  upon  a 
great  and  reasonable  cause  declared  to  the  Curate 
and  by  him  approved." 

"And  also,  they  shall  warn  them  that  without 
great  cause  and  necessity,  they  baptize  not  children 
at  home  in  their  houses.  And  when  great  need 
shall  compel  them  so  to  do,  that  then  they  minister  it 
on  this  fashion.  First,  let  them  that  be  present  call 
upon  God  for  His  grace  and  say  the  Lord's  prayer, 
if  the  time  will  suffer.  And  then  one  of  them  shall 
name  the  child,  and  dip  him  in  the  water,  or  pour 
water  upon  him,  saying  these  words, — N,  I  baptize 
thee,"  &c. 

*  Consult  "  History  of  Conferences,"  c.  6,,  and  Fallow, 
p.    177. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  163 

"And  let  them  not  doubt,  but  the  child  so 
baptized  is  lawfully  and  sufficiently  baptized,  and 
ought  not  to  be  baptized  again  in  the  Church.  But 
yet,  nevertheless,  if  the  child  which  is  after  this 
sort  baptized,  do  afterwards  live,  it  is  expedi- 
ent that  he  be  brought  into  the  Church,  to  the  in- 
tent the  Priest  may  examine  and  try  whether  the 
child  be  lawfully  baptized  or  no."* 

Then  follow  the  questions  which  the  Priest 
was  in  such  case  to  put  to  the  child,  and  which  re- 
late to  the  element  and  fo7'm  only.  It  is  plain  there- 
fore that  both  the  liturgies  of  King  Edward  legal- 
ized Lay-Baptism  in  case  of  necessity,  following 
herein  the  Koman  custom.  And  this  state  of  things 
continued  until  the  reign  of  James  I. 

In  the  first  day's  conference  at  Hampton  Court, 
to  which  the  Puritan  divines  were  not  admitted, 
the  King  "  required  satisfaction"  of  the  Bishops 
about  several  points  of  doctrine  and  discipline. — 
Under  the  head  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
the  third  point  (according  to  Barlow)  was  "  pri- 
vate Baptism  ;  if  private  for  place,  his  majesty 
thought  it  agreed  with  the  use  of  the  Primitive 
Church  5  if  for  persons,  that  any  but  a  lawful  min- 
ister might  baptize  anj^where,  he  utterly  disliked; 
and  in  that  point  his  highness  grew  somewhat 
earnest  against  the  baptizing  by  women  and  laics." 

*  See  Fallow,  p.  224,  and  Cardwell,  «  The  two  Books 
of  Common  Prayer,"  &c.  p.  337. 


164  LAY-BAPTISM. 

After  replying  to  certain  other  difficulties  and 
doubts  suggested  by  the  King,  the  "Archbishop 
proceeded  to  speak  of  private  Baptism,  showing 
his  majesty  that  the  administration  of  Baptism  by 
women  and  lay-persons  was  not  allowed  in  the 
practice  of  the  Church,  but  inquired  of  by  Bishops 
in  their  visitation  and  censured  ;  neither  do  the 
words  in  the  book  infer  any  such  meaning.  Where- 
unto  the  King  excepted,  urging  and  pressing  the 
words  of  the  book,  that  they  could  not  but  intend 
a  permission,  and  suffering  of  women  and  private 
persons  to  baptize.  Here  the  Bishop  of  Worcester 
said  that  the  words  were  doubtful,  and  might  be 
pressed  to  that  meaning,  but  yet  it  seemed  by  the 
contrary  practice  of  our  Church  (censuring  wo- 
men in  this  case)  that  the  compilers  of  the  book 
did  not  so  intend  them,  and  yet  propounded  them 
ambiguously,  because  otherwise,  perhaps,  the  book 
would  not  then  have  passed  in  the  Parliament  (and 
for  this  conjecture,  as  I  remember,  he  cited  the 
testimony  of  my  Lord  Archbishop  of  York) :  where- 
unto  the  Bishop  of  London  replied,  that  those  learn- 
ed and  reverend  men,  who  framed  the  book  of 
Common  Prayer,  intended  not  by  ambiguous  terms 
to  deceive  any,  but  did,  indeed,  by  those  words 
intend  a  permission  of  private  persons  to  baptize  in 
case  of  necessity,  whereof  their  letters  were  wit- 
nesses." *  *  * 

"  The  issue  was  a  consultation,  whether  into  the 


LAY-BAPTISM.  165 

rubric  of  private  Baptism,  which  leaves  it  indiffer- 
ently to  all  laics  or  clergy,  the  v/ords,  Curate  or 
lawful  Minister,  might  not  be  inserted,  which  was 
not  so  much  stuck  at  by  the  Bishops."* 

Accordingly,  the  rubric  of  King  Edward's  book 
for  Private  Baptism,  was  so  modified,  as  to  read 
thus  :  "  And  also  they  shall  warn  them  that,  with- 
out great  cause  and  necessity,  they  procure  not 
their  children  to  he  baptized  at  home  in  their  houses. 
And  when  great  need  shall  compel  them  so  to  do, 
that  then  Baptism  shall  be  administered  on  this  fash- 
ion;  first  let  the  lawful  minister  and  them  that  be 
present  call  upon  God  for  his  grace  and  say  the 
Lord's  prayer,  if  time  will  suffer:  and  then  the 
child  being  named  by  some  one  that  is  present^  the  said 
lawful  minister  shall  dip  it  in  water  or  pour  water 
upon  it,  saying  these  words,"  &c.f 

We  think  it  fair  to  conclude  from  the  foregoing 
account  of  the  Liturgies  of  Edward  VL  and  James  L, 

1.  That  the  earliest  reformers  retained  the  Ro- 
mish doctrine  respecting  the  absolute  necessity  of 
Baptism,  and  the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism  in  case 
of  necessity,  which  they  accordingly  allowed. 

*  See  '^  The  Sum  and  Substance  of  the  Conference,  &c. 
at  Hampton  Court,"  by  Dr.  Barlow,  in  Cardwell's  "  History 
of  Conferences,"   p.  167,  ss. 

t  Fallow's  "  Order  of  Baptism,"  &c.  p.  225.  The 
Italics  above  denote  the  additions  to  the  rubric  of  Edward, 
which  may  be  seen  on  p.  162. 


166  LAY-BAPTISM. 

2.  That  gradually,  as  the  notion  of  the  absolute 
necessity  of  Baptism  gave  way,  an  aversion  to  Lay- 
Baptism  arose,  so  that  prior  to  the  Hampton  Court 
Conference,  the  Bishops  discountenanced  and  pro- 
hibited it  as  far  as  in  them  lay,  without  resorting 
to  forcible  measures. 

3.  That  at  the  said  Conference  a  diversity  of 
opinion  existed  touching  the  question,  whether  Lay- 
Baptism  was  allowed  even  by  Edward's  rubric  j 
and  that  the  Bishops  (without  deciding  upon  the 
validity  of  Lay-Baptism  if  done  without  sanction) 
acquiesced  in  the  king's  determination,  that  the 
Minister,  "  though  he  be  not  of  the  essence  of  the 
Sacrament,  yet  is  he  of  the  essence  of  the  right  and 
lawful  ministry  of  the  Sacrament,"  and  accordingly 
formally  disallowed  Lay-Baptism  altogether. 

The  rubric  respecting  private  Baptism  in  the 
Liturgy  of  1661,  differs  from  that  of  1604^  chiefly  in 
this  particular  ;  instead  of  saying,  "  let  the  lawful 
Minister  and  them  that  be  present  call  upon  God," 
&:c.,  it  enjoins,  "  let  the  Minister  of  the  parish,  or^ 
in  his  absence,  any  other  lawful  Minister  that  can  be 
procured,  with  them  that  are  present,  call  upon 
God,"  &c.  It  substantially  agrees  with  the  former  ; 
but  is  still  more  explicit,  restricting  Baptism,  even 
in  case  of  necessity,  to  the  "  Minister  of  the  parish," 
and  in  case  of  his  absence,  prescribing  as  the  only 
substitute,  "  any  other  lawful  Minister :"  by  which 
all  pretence  of  the  allowance  or  tolerance  of  Lay- 


LAY-BAPTISM.  167 

Baptism  is  effectually  barred,  since  it  is  plain  from 
the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  that  no  man  is  regarded 
as  a  "  lawful  Minister"  by  the  Church,  unless  he 
has  received  Episcopal  Ordination. 

It  is  sometimes  objected  to  the  foregoing  inter- 
pretation of  the  rubrics  respecting  Private  Baptism 
in  the  Liturgies  of  1604  and  1661,  that  the  portion 
of  them  which  provides  for  conditional  Baptism,  in 
case  the  Minister  of  the  parish  have  doubts  respect- 
ing the  regularity  and  completeness  of  any  Bap- 
tism, is  adverse  to  our  view  of  the  exclusive  allow- 
ance of  legal  Baptism  under  them. 

After  providing  for  and  sanctioning  private  Bap- 
tism by  a  lawful  Minister  in  case  of  necessity,  the 
rubric  proceeds :  "  If  the  child  which  is  baptized 
after  this  sort  do  afterward  live,  it  is  expedient  that 
it  be  brought  into  the  church,  to  the  intent  that,  if 
the  Minister  of  the  same  parish  did  himself  baptize 
that  child,  the  congregation  maybe  certified  of  the 
true  form  of  Baptism  by  him  privately  before  used." 

*  *  *  "  But  if  the  child  were  baptized  by  any  other 
laivful  Minister^  the  Minister  of  the  parish  w^here 
the  child  was  born  or  christened  shall  examine  and 
try  whether  the  child  be  lawfully  baptized  or  no." 

*  *  *  "  And  if  the  Minister  shall  find  by  the  answers 
of  such  as  bring  the  child,  that  all  things  were  done 
as  they  ought  to  be  ;  then  shall  not  he  christen  the 
child  again,  but  shall  receive  him  as  one  of  the 
flock  of  true  Christian  people,  saying,"  &c.  *  *  * 


168  LAY-BAPTISM. 

"  But  if  they  which  bring  the  infant  to  the 
church  do  make  such  uncertain  answers  to  the 
Priest's  questions,  as  that  it  cannot  appear  that  the 
child  was  baptized  with  water,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
(which  are  essential  parts  of  Baptism),  then  let  the 
Priest  baptize  it  in  the  form  before  appointed  for 
Public  Baptism  of  Infants ;  saving  that  at  the  dip- 
ping of  the  child  in  the  font,  he  shall  use  this  form 
of  words, — If  thou  art  not  already  baptized,  I  bap- 
tize thee,"  &c.* 

Now  the  words  upon  which  great  stress  is  laid, 
as  though  they  implied  the  sufficiency  of  Lay-Bap- 
tism, are  those  in  the  last  paragraph  which  follow 
the  mention  of  the  element  and  form,  viz.,  '•'•which 
are  essential  parts  of  Baptism  ;"  as  though  the  ru- 
bric, in  declaring  the  element  and  form  "  essential," 
did  pronounce  the  Minister  tm-essential.  This  is 
about  as  fair  logic  as  the  following  ;  a  body  and  a 
soul  are  "  essential  parts"  of  man  j  therefore  a 
spirit  is  not  an  essential  part  of  man. 

Is  it  not  plain  that,  to  make  good  our  opponents' 
plea,  the  definite  article  is  needed  before  "  essen- 
tial V  Had  the  rubric  declared  the  element  and 
form  the  "essential  parts  of  Baptism,"  it  would  be 
a  fair  inference,  that  the  Minister  is  not  "  essen- 
tial."    On  the  other  hand  we  claim  that  the  absence 

*   See  Fallow,  p.  229,  ss, 


LAY-BAPTISM.  169 

of  the  definite  article  does  necessarily  imply  that 
there  is  some  other  "  essential  part"  besides  the 
form  and  element.  What  can  this  be  but  the  law- 
ful Minister  ? 

We  think  then  that  it  has  been  clearly  shown 
that,  at  the  final  revision  of  the  Liturgy  in  1661 
(by  which  time  the  decision  of  the  Hampton  Court 
Conference  that  the  Sacraments  are  ''''generally  ne- 
cessary to  salvation"  had  quite  superseded  the  Au- 
gustinian  and  Papal  dogma  of  their  absolute  neces- 
sity), a  final  blow  was  levelled  at  Lay-Baptism, 
which  has  ever  since  been  utterly  destitute  of  any 
other  foundation  than  that  afforded  by  lingering 
prejudice,  or  by  the  tolerance  of  individual  Bishops 
of  the  Church.  We  are  aware  that  English  laymen, 
acting  as  Judges  of  Ecclesiastical  Courts,  have 
otherwise  determined.  But  with  this  we  have  no- 
thing to  do.  It  is  one  of  the  blessings  of  our  ex- 
emption from  all  formal  connection  with,  or  de- 
pendence on  the  state,  that  we  are  free  from  the 
anomaly  of  subjecting  "  those  w^ho  sit  in  Moses'  seat" 
to  the  (usurped)  dictation  in  spiritual  things,  of  such 
as  ought  herein  to  be  learners,  not  teachers,  doers 
of  the  law,  not  judges  of  the  law.  Were  we  in 
England,  it  would  be  incumbent  on  us  to  submit  to 
such  decisions,  although  we  could  not  but  deem 
them  in  opposition  to  the  law  and  the  testimony. 
Here  we  are  privileged  and  bound  to  follow  the  re- 
corded directions  of  the  Church  herself,  wherever 
15 


170  LAY-BAPTISM. 

they  are  plain  ;  and  where  they  are  doubtful,  to 
have  recourse  to  the  arbitration  (not  of  laymen, but) 
of  the  Bishops  of  the  Church,  the  spiritual  judges, 
as  well  as  rulers,  in  the  courts  of  the  Lord. 

In  respect  to  this  question  of  Lay-Baptism,  as 
decided  by  the  rubrics  of  the  Anglican  Church, 
there  does  not  appear,  we  repeat,  any  ground  for  it 
to  rest  upon.  Lest  we  should  be  thought  singular 
in  our  opinion,  we  quote  the  recorded  judgment  of 
Anglican  writers  of  no  mean  rank. 

Mr.  Lawrence  thus  writes  upon  this  subject : — 
"  Our  Church  is  not  so  supine  and  negligent  about 
Lay-Baptisms,  as  some  may  reckon  her;  for, 
though  (as  Dr.  Geo.  Abbot,  in  the  lecture  which  he 
read  in  the  divinity  school  at  Oxford^  De  Circum- 
cisione  et  Baptismo,  1597,  says)  ''our  Church  after 
the  Reformation^  facilitate  larga,  with  great  latitude 
and  indulgence^  for  some  time  tolerated  the  Baptism  of 
lay  men  and  wojnen  in  absolute  necessity^  for  the  ig' 
norance  of  the  people,  and  hardness  of  their  hearts^ 
yet  it  is  most  certain,  that  upon  a  review  of  her 
Liturgy,  she  has  erased  and  blotted  out  that  rubric 
which  tolerated  such  Baptisms ;  and  not  only  so, 
but  instead  thereof,  has  appointed  that  even  in 
cases  of  necessity.  Baptism  shall  be  administered 
by  the  Minister  of  the  parish^  or  in  his  absence  any 
other  lawful  Minister  that  can  he  procured  ;  and  we 
all  know  what  she  means  by  lawful  Minister,  i.  e., 
one  Episcopally  ordained  \    for  she  allows  of  no 


LAY-EAPTISM.  171 

Other  ordination,  but  obliges  all,  howsoever  and  by 
whomsoever  otherwise  ordained,  to  submit  to  be 
ordained  by  a  Bishop  before  she  can  acknowledge 
them  to  have  any  lawful  call,  or  power  to  minister 
the  holy  Sacraments.  This  shows  her  non-appro- 
val and  rejection  of  midwife  and  other  Lay-Bap- 
tisms ;  which  is  a  plain  proof  that  she  does  not  al- 
low of  their  validity  5  and  by  this  act  she  calls  louder 
for  what  our  author  terms  Re-baptization,  than  her 
supposed  silence  does  for  an  acquiescence  in  such 
false,  or  rather  no  Baptisms  :  and  therefore,  'tis 
necessary  to  administer  Catholic  Baptism  to  those 
who  never  received  it,  and  v/ho  only  have  been 
washed  by  unauthorized  and  Anti-Episcopal  lay- 
baptizers,  which  is  worse  than  if  they  had  been  so 
by  laymen,  allow^ed  of  by  their  Bishops  j  the  au- 
thority of  which  latter  Baptism,  if  any  at  all,  is  now 
also  taken  away,  and  made  void  in  the  Church  of 
England.'-'* 

Bishop  Mant  (than  whom  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land has  no  truer  son,  nor  an  abler  advocate  of 
Evangelic  truth  and  Apostolic  order)  thus  forcibly 
and  unequivocally  interprets  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  on  this  subject: — 

"No  authority  to  administer  Baptism  having 
been  given  to  any  others  than  Christ's  ministers,  it 
ishould  seem  that  Baptism,  as  w^ell  as  the  preaching 

*  Sacerdotal  Powers,  c.  5.  p.  88,  ss. 


172  LAY-BAPTISM. 

of  the  Gospel  and  the  ministration  of  the  other 
Sacraments,  cannot  lawfully  and  with  assurance  of 
its  efficacy,  be  celebrated  by  any  others.  And  this 
is  agreeable  to  the  rules  of  the  Church.  For  al- 
though there  may  have  been  aforetime  some,  who 
have  pleaded  for  the  ministration  of  Baptism  in 
cases  of  great  necessity  by  another  person  than  a 
lawful  minister,  where  a  lawful  minister  could  not 
be  had ;  and  although  the  Church  of  Rome,  acting 
under  the  persuasion  of  the  absolute  necessity  of 
Baptism  to  salvation,  has  allov/ed  persons,  not  hav- 
ing the  ministerial  commission  to  baptize  in  such 
cases  ;  and  although  in  the  earliest  age  of  our  Re- 
formed Church,  under  the  influence  of  the  like 
persuasion,  inherited  from  the  Romish  Church,  al- 
lowance was  likewise  given  for  such  a  practice  j 
yet  subsequently,  following  the  judgment  and  ex- 
ample of  the  early  Church,  she  discerned  her  error, 
and  retraced  her  steps ;  and  by  three  successive 
corrections  of  her  decision,  first,  by  a  restrictive  ex- 
planation of  her  former  law  in  Queen  Elizabeth^s 
time,  and  then  in  King  James  the  First's,  and  again 
in  King  Charles  the  Second's,  by  a  new  and  positive 
provision,  she  determined,  that  even  private  Bap- 
tism, in  cases  of  great  necessity,  should  be  minis- 
tered only  by  a  lawful  minister.  And  the  ground 
of  her  determination  must  be  judged  to  be,  that 
however  excellent  be  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  by 
reason  of  its  spiritual  grace,  that  grace  is  not  prom- 


LAY-BAPTISM.  173 

ised  except  to  its  due  administration;  and  that  it 
were  better  to  omit  the  rite  altogether,  and  to  leave 
the  child  to  the  uncovenanted  mercy  of  God,  than 
to  make  pretence  of  ministering  it  unlawfully,  and 
thus  attempt  to  bring  the  child  into  covenant  with 
God  by  an  instrument  not  of  his  appointment." 

"  You  see,  then,  that  it  is  a  '  lawful  minister,' 
from  whom  the  members  of  the  Church  are  to  seek 
the  Baptism  of  their  children  ;  and,  of  course,  '  the 
minister  of  the  Parish'  in  all  ordinary  cases  ;  though 
'in  cases  of  great  cause  and  necessity,'  where 
*need  compels'  them  to  seek  for  private  Baptism, 
they  may  '  in  the  absence'  of  the  minister  of  the 
parish,  have  recourse  to  '  any  other  lawful  minister 
that  can  be  procured.'  Even  in  such  cases  of 
*  need,'  however,  the  Church  does  not  permit  the 
Baptismal  Sacrament  to  be  administered,  (as  it  was 
intimated  that  she  did  in  the  years  first  following 
the  Reformation,)  '  by  any  one  of  them  that  be 
present,'  that  is,  by  any  lay-person  ;  but  she  limits 
the  ministration  to  '  a  lawful  minister,'  to  one  au- 
thorized by  Christ's  commission  to  minister  it,  and 
therefore  qualified  to  minister  it  with  effect.'* 

We  conclude  this  citation  of  witnesses  with  the 
following  lucid  passage  from  Wheatley,  who  is  ac- 


•  "  The  Church  and  her  Ministrations  :  in  a  series  of  Dis- 
courses," by  Richard  Mant,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Down  and 
Connor  ;   p.  244,  ss.      London,  1838. 

15* 


174  '  LAY-BAPTiS?,I. 

knowledged  to  be  one  of  the  most  competent  judges 
in  all  Liturgical  questions: — 

"  When  necessity  requires  that  Baptism  be  pri- 
vately administered,  the  Minister  of  the  parish,  or 
(in  his  absence)  some  other  lawful  Minister  is  to  be 
procured.     This  is  an  order  which  was  not  made 
till  after  the  conference   at  Hampton  Court,  upon 
the  accession  of  King  James  I.  to  the  throne.     In 
both  Common  Prayer  Books  of  King  Edward,  and 
in  that  of  Queen  Elizabeth,   the  rubric  was  only 
this  :  First,  let  them  that  be  present  call  upon  God  for 
his  grace,  and  say  the  Lord's  Prayer,  if  the  time  will 
suffer  ;  and  then  one  of  them  shall  name  the  child, 
and  dip  him  in  the  water,   or  pour  water  upon  him, 
saying  these  words,  JV,   /  baptize,  &c.     Now  this,   it 
is  plain  from  the  writings  and  letters  of  our  first 
Reformers,  was  originally  designed  to  commission 
Lay-Persons  to  baptize  in  cases  of  necessity ;  be- 
ing founded  upon   an  error,  which  our  Reformers 
had  imbibed  in  the  Romish  Church,  concerning  the 
impossibility  of  salvation  without  the  Sacrament  of 
Baptism :  which  therefore  being  in  their   opinion 
so  absolutely  necessary,  they  chose  should  be  ad- 
ministered by  any  body  that  was  present,  in  cases 
of  extremity,  rather  than  any  should  die  without 
it." 

"  But  afterwards,  when  they  came  to  have  clear- 
er notions  of  the  Sacraments,  and  perceived  how 
absurd  it  was  to  confine  the  mercies  of  God  to  out. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  175 

ward  means  ;  and  especially  to  consider  that  the 
salvation  of  the  child  might  be  as  safe  in  God's 
mercy,  without  any  Baptism,  as  with  one  performed 
by  persons  not  duly  commissioned  to  administer  it ; 
when  the  governors  of  the  Church,  I  say,  cam.e  to 
be  convinced  of  this,  they  thought  it  proper  to  ex- 
plain the  rubric  above  mentioned,  in  such  a  manner 
as  should  exclude  any  private  person  from  admin- 
istering of  Baptism.  Accordingly,  when  some  ar- 
ticles were  passed  by  both  houses  of  Convocation, 
in  the  year  1575,  the  Archbishop  and  Bishops  (who 
had  power  and  authority  in  their  several  dioceses 
to  resolve  all  doubts  concerning  the  manner  how  to 
understand^  do,  a7id  execute  the  things  contained  in 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer)  unanimously  resolved, 
that  even  'private  Baptism^  in  case  of  necessity,  was 
only  to  be  administered  by  a  lawful  Minister  or 
Deacon,  and  that  all  other  persons  should  be  in- 
hibited to  intermeddle  with  the  ministering  of  Bap- 
tism privately,  as  being  no  part  of  their  voca- 
tion." *  *  * 

"  Upon  the  accession  of  King  James  I.  to  the 
throne,  the  matter  was  again  debated  in  the  Hamp- 
ton Court  Conference  ;  the  result  of  which  was, 
that  instead  of  those  words,  let  them  that  be  present 
call  upon  God,  &c.,  the  rubric  should  be,  letthelaw- 
ful  Minister^''  &c. 

"  And  thus  the  rubric  stood  till  the  review  at 


176  LAY-BAPTISM. 

the  Eestoration,  when  it  only  underwent  some  small 
variation."  *  *  * 

"  The  Church  only  provides  that  none  but  a  Min- 
ister, or  one  duly  ordained,  presume  to  intermeddle 
in  it  ]  well  knowing  that  the  persons,  by  whom 
Baptism  is  to  be  administered,  are  plainly  as  posi- 
tive a  part  of  the  institution,  as  any  thing  else  re- 
lating to  that  ordinance  ;  and  consequently  that  the 
power  of  administering  it  must  belong  to  those  only 
whom  Christ  hath  authorized  by  the  institution."  *  * 

"If  it  be  asked,  whether  Baptism,  when  per- 
formed by  an  unordained  person,  be,  in  the  sense 
of  our  Church,  valid  and  effectual  ?  I  answer, 
that,  according  to  the  best  judgment  we  can  form 
from  her  public  acts  and  offices,  it  is  not.  For 
she  not  only  supposes,  that  a  child  will  die  unbap- 
tized,  if  the  regular  Minister  does  not  come  time 
enough  to  baptize  it ;  but  in  the  abovesaid  determi- 
nation of  the  Bishops  and  Convocation,  she  ex- 
pressly declares,  that  even  in  cases  of  necessity, 
Baptism  is  only  to  be  administered  by  a  lawful 
Minister  or  Deacon,  and  directly  inhibits  all  other 
persons  from  intermeddling  with  it,  though  ever  so 
privately,  as  being  no  part  of  their  vocation  ;  a  plain 
intimation  that  no  Baptism,  but  what  is  administered 
by  persons  duly  ordained,  is  valid  or  effectual. — 
For  if  Baptism,  administered  by  persons  not  duly 
ordained,  be  valid  and  sufficient  to  convey  the  ben- 


LAY-BAPTISM.  177 

efits  of  it,  why  should  such  persons  be  prohibited 
to  administer  it  in  case  of  real  necessity,  when  a 
regular  Minister  cannot  be  procured  1  It  would 
Burely  be  better  for  the  child  to  have  it  from  any 
hand,  if  any  hand  could  give  it,  than  that  it  should 
die  without  the  advantage  of  it.  Our  Church  there- 
fore, by  prohibiting  all  from  intermeddling  in  Bap- 
tism but  a  lawful  Minister,  plainly  hints,  that  when 
Baptism  is  administered  by  any  others,  it  conveys 
no  benefit  or  advantage  to  the  child,  but  only 
brings  upon  those,  who  pretend  to  administer  it, 
the  guilt  of  usurping  a  sacred  office  ;  and  conse- 
quently that  persons  so  pretendedly  baptized  (if 
they  live  to  be  sensible  of  their  state  and  condi- 
tion) are  to  apply  to  their  lawful  Minister  or  Bishop 
for  that  Holy  Sacrament,  of  which  they  only  re- 
ceived a  profanation  before."* 

The  authorities  just  cited  sustain,  we  think, 
fully  the  positions  we  have  taken  in  this  chapter. 
We  repeat,  then,  that  it  is  evident, 

1.  That  the  doctrine  of  the  absolute  necessity 
of  Baptism  to  salvation,  which  was  itself  an  error 
of  certain  Fathers,  was  the  source  of  Lay-Baptism. 

2.  That  these  two  doctrines  progressed  pari  pas- 
su, and  were  established  in  the  Western  Church  by 
Papal  influence  and  authority. 

*  "A  Rational  Illustration  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
of  the  Church  of  England,"  p.  391.  ss.   Boston  ed.  1837. 


178  LAY-BAPTISM. 

3.  That  they  both  survived  the  Reformation  in 
England,  and  were  not  deprived  of  all  authoritative 
sanction  until  the  Hampton  Court  Conference  in 
1604  5  since  which  time,  in  the  Anglican  Church, 
the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism  has  nothing  to  stand 
upon  but  mere  private  opinion. 


LAY-BAPTISM.  179 


CHAPTER    XII. 

The  American  Liturgy.     The  alleged  Practice  of  the 
American  Church.     Conclusion. 

All  the  arguments  of  the  preceding  Chapter 
against  Lay-Baptism,  based  upon  the  rubrics  in  the 
formulary  of  the  Anglican  Liturgy  for  the  minis- 
tration of  Private  Baptism  in  case  of  necessity, 
have  the  same  firm  foundation  in  the  American 
Liturgy  ;  which  has  retained  the  service  of  1661 
entire  and  unchanged.  So  that  those  who  seek 
formal  ecclesiastical  authority  in  favor  of  Lay-Bap- 
tism, must  go  to  the  Pope  for  it,  seeing  that  the 
Anglican  Church  finally  renounced  it  in  1661,  and 
that  the  American  Church  has  from  the  beginning 
adopted  that  renunciation. 

If  therefore  any  individual  who  has  received 
Lay-Baptism  becomes  satisfied  of  its  invalidity,  he 
is  entitled  to  ask  and  have  true  and  legal  Baptism 
from  a  lawful  Minister  of  the  Church.  Or,  if  any 
individual  so  baptized,  or  the  lawful  Minister  whom 
he  may  consult,  should  entertain  doubts  upon  the 
subject ;  we  see  not  why  he  may  not  be  condition- 
ally baptized  ;  although  with  our  view  of  the  sub- 
ject, there  is  no  m.ore  objection  to  the  uncon- 
ditional Baptism  of  a  lay  convert  to  the  Church, 
than  to  the  unconditional  ordination  of  a  clerical 


180  LAY*BAPTISM. 

convert.  In  fact  they  both  stand  upon  the  same 
footing ;  without  Episcopal  ordination  there  is  no 
lawful  ministry  ;  and  without  lawful  ministration 
there  is  no  valid  Baptism.  Hence  the  remedy  is, 
in  the  former  case,  lawful  ordination  by  a  Bishop  ; 
in  the  latter,  lawful  Baptism  by  a  Priest.  In  other 
words — no  Bishop,  no  Priest  j  no  Priest,  no  Bap- 
tism. 

Our  position, — that  the  standards  of  the  Church 
reprobate  Lay-Baptism,  and  warrant,  if  they  do  not 
prescribe,  the  subsequent  Baptism  by  a  lawful  Min- 
ister of  those  who  have  been  washed  by  a  layman, 
in  the  name  of  the  Trinity, — is  met  by  another  ob- 
jection. Common  usage,  it  is  said,  is  common  law  j 
and  since  the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism  has  been 
long  allowed  in  the  case  of  converts  from  the  de- 
nominations around  us,  it  follows  that  this  point  is 
thereby  ruled  in  favor  of  Lay-Baptism,  notwith- 
standing the  contrary  conclusions  derived  from  the 
standards  of  the  Church. 

Now,  whatever  force  the  maxim,  about  common 
usage  being  common  law,  may  have  in  secular 
things,  we  utterly  deny  its  applicability  to  things 
divine.  What  man  originates,  man  may  change  in 
his  own  way  ;  what  God  originates,  man  may  not 
change  in  any  way.  And  w^hat  God's  Church  or- 
dains, as  the  interpreter  and  the  keeper  of  His  word, 
agreeably  to  His  will,  no  custom  nor  law  of  man 
can  possibly  affect  or  set  aside.     Otherwise  it  were 


LAY-BAPTISM.  l8l 

easy  to  sanction  and  perpetuate  the  grossest  abuses. 
This  maxim  would  sustain  and  justify  each  and  all 
of  the  corruptions  of  Popery,  not  excepting  the  Pa- 
pal supremacy  itself.     In  this  consists  the  indefec- 
tibility  (not  infallibility)   of  the   Church,  that,  no 
matter  what  errors  or  corruptions  shall  from  time 
to  time  arise  and  bear  swaj?-  for  a   season  in   any 
branch  of  the  Church,  there  is  always  a  remedy  at 
hand,  in  the  keeping  even  of  the  corrupt  branch  it- 
self, viz.,  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  recorded  tes- 
timony and  practice   of  Apostohc   men,  to  v/hom 
inspired  Apostles  taught  "  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Je- 
sus."    And  it  is  even  then,  when  common   usage 
has  almost  sanctified  error  or  corruption,  that  the 
divine  witness  gives  testimony  against  and  sets 
aside   such  false   intruders,  notwithstanding  their 
alleged  prescriptive  right  to  permanent  possession. 
So  is  it  in  the  case  before  us.     Lay-Baptism, 
begotten  of  error  in  the  Church  of  God,  was  -at  last 
domesticated  among  its  rightful  occupants  by  un- 
just and  unfaithful  stewards  ;  and  when  a  returning 
sense  of  duty  moved  more  faithful  rulers  to  its  ejec- 
tion, it  still  lingered  in  the  outer  courts,  hiding  its 
diminished  head,  or  skulked  in  corners  of  the  sacred 
house  ;  and  now,  when   dragged   from   its  hiding 
place,  and    required   to  obey  the   lawful    sentence 
long  ago  pronounced  and  long  artfully  evaded,  it 
offers  prescriptive  right  of  occupation  as  its  plea 
for  undisturbed  possession.     But  no — cast  it  out  ,* 
16 


182  LAY-BAPTISM. 

for  it  bears  not  the  seal  and  impress  of  the  sanc- 
tuary. 

I  beg  leave,  in  conclusion,  to  adopt  as  my  own 
the  following  pertinent  questions  of  Mr.  Lawrence, 
and  respectfully  propose  them  to  the  asserters  of 
the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism,  as  well  deserving  their 
most  serious  consideration. 

"  1st.  Whether  Christ's  institution  of  Baptism 
does  not  as  much  determine,  that  it  must  constant- 
ly and  unalterably  be  administered  by  those  only, 
who  are  the  Apostles'  Successors,  and  others  ap- 
pointed by  them;  as  it  does  fix  the  matter  to  be  no 
other  than  water^  and  the  form  to  be  no  other  than 
that  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity  ?  And  if  it  does, 
then, 

"  2dly.  Whether  the  Administrator  of  Christ's 
Baptism  is  not  appointed  to  be  the  Representative  of 
God  the  giver,  as  much  as  the  matter  water  is,  to 
be  the  outward  sign  of  the  inward  and  spiritual 
graces  given  and  conveyed  by  Baptism  1  And  if  it 
is, 

"  3dly.  Whether  there  can  be  such  a  thing  as 
an  instituted  outward  sign  of  inward  and  spiritual 
graces  given,  without  the  instituted  Representative 
of  God,  the  Giver  of  those  graces  1 

"  4jthly.  Whether  an  unauthorized  Layman  can 
be  justly  said  to  be  God's  Representative ;  and 
how  he  can,  even  in  times  of  greatest  necessity, 
give  us  the  sign  and  seal  as  God's  Attorney,  with- 


LAY-BAPTISM.  183 

out  a  Commission,  either  immediately  from  God, 
or  mediately  from  those  whom  God  has  authorized 
to  give  such  Commission  % 

"5thly.  Whether  Christ's  Commission  to  His 
Apostles  and  their  Successors,  and  those  appointed 
by  them  to  the  end  of  the  world,  in  these  words, 
"  Go  YE,  disciple — baptizing^^^  is  not  a  positive  com- 
mand to  them,  actually  to  baptize  such  as  were 
never  baptized  by  themi  If  it  is  not,  how  are 
clergymen  obliged  to  baptize  at  all  1  And  what 
divine  law  is  there,  that  has  made  it  their  incum- 
bent duty  to  give  Baptism  X  But  if  the  command 
is  a  peremptory  command,  and  they  are  bound  to 
obey  it,  and  consequently  to  baptize  actually  all 
capable  subjects  who  were  never  baptized  by 
them,  then, 

*'6thly.  How  can  they  be  fairly  said  to  have 
obeyed  this  command  of  Christ,  when  they  refuse 
Baptism  to  those,  who  never  received  it  from  any 
of  them,  and  earnestly  sue  to  them  for  it  % 

"  Tthly.  Whether  instead  of  this  act  of  obedi- 
ence there  is  any  instituted  commutative  act,  to 
be  performed  by  the  clergy  over  those  who  never 
were  baptized  by  them  ]  and  which  is  appointed  to 
answer  all  the  ends  and  designs  of  sacerdotal  Bap- 
tism in  some  extraordinary  cases,  when  the  giving 
or  requiring  of  such  Baptism  may  cause  disturb- 
ances in  the  Church  of  Christ,  from  the  wickedness 
of  some  and  ignorance  of  others  1 


184  LAY-BAPTISM. 

"  Sthly.  If  there  is  any  such  instituted  commu- 
tative act,  to  supply  the  want  of  sacerdotal  Baptism, 
when  and  by  whom  was  it  appointed  1 

^  9thly.  But  if  there  is  no  such  commutative 
act  appointed,  then  why  should  men  rest  satisfied 
with  such  uninstituted  washings  as  are  performed  by 
unauthorized  Laymen  1  And  especially,  what  rea- 
son can  be  given  why  many  among  us  should  be 
esteemed  to  have  received  Christ's  Baptism,  when  in 
truth  they  have  only  been  washed  by  unauthorized 
Laymen,  in  opposition  to  the  divine  authority  of  the 
Apostles'  Successors,  the  Bishops  of  the  Christian 
Church  1 

"  lOthly.  If  the  Institution  of  Baptism  does  not 
necessarily  require  that  the  administration  thereof 
should  be  authorized  and  commissioned  by  the 
Apostles'  Successors  ;  then  by  what  divine  law  can 
it  be  proved,  that  unbaptized  persons  of  riper  years 
are  obliged  to  seek  for  Baptism  at  the  hands  of  any 
other  administrator 'I  Why  cannot  such  persons 
baptize  themselves  as  well  as  receive  Baptism  from 
another,  since  they  have  as  much  authority  to  come 
into  the  Church  by  their  own  act  of  baptizing  them- 
selves, as  others  have  to  admit  them  into  it  by 
their  unauthorized  act  of  baptization  V 

To  these  I  add  the  following  questions  : 

llthly.  If  the  plea  of  necessity  does  over- 
rule and  set  aside  the  provision  of  Christ  and  of 
His  Church  in  regard  to  the  administration  of  Bap- 


LAY-BAPTISM.  185 

tism  ,*  why  should  not  the  same  plea  overrule  and 
set  aside  the  ordinance  of  Christ  and  His  Church 
respecting  ordination,  and  make  the  laying  on  of 
hands  by  a  Presbyter,  or  Deacon,  or  even  Layman, 
valid  ordination  "l* 

12thly.  If  the  restriction  of  the  divine  Commis- 
sion is  not  so  firm  and  immovable,  but  that  it  may 
be  relaxed  in  favor  of  Lay-Baptism  in  certain 
cases ;  u'hy  may  it  not  be  relaxed  in  similar  cases  in 
favor  of  Lay-consecration  of  the  Eucharist,  Lay- 
absolution,  Lay-preaching  ;  and  so  on  of  all  holy 
ministrations]  And  if  it  may  be  thus  relaxed, 
what  ground  has  the  Christian  Ministry  to  stand 
upon,  but  that  of  higher  expediency,  or  popular  al" 
lovvance  1 

If  this  be  so,  then  are  the  Ministers  of  Christ  of 
all  men  most  miserable  j  for  they  must  fight,  in  the 
vanguard  of  the  host,  against  the  world,  the  flesh, 
and  the  devil,  shorn  of  spiritual  authority,  and 
stripped  of  spiritual  armor.  If  this  be  so  (that 
their  authority  depends  on  popular  allowance),  the 
temptation  were  sore  to  adopt  the  lying  motto. 
Vox  jpopuli  vox  Dei ;  and  instead  of  reproving, 
rebuking,  exhorting,  to  prophesy  smooth  things. 

It  is  worth  noticing  a  fact,  which  speaks  volumes, 
that  almost  every  writer,  who  advocates  Lay-Baptism  in 
ease  of  necessity,  allows  likewise  the  validity,  under  the  like 
circumstances,  of  non-Episcopal  ordination,  and  consequently 
of  lay-ministration  of  every  sacerdotal  office. 

16* 


186  LAY-BAPTISM. 

But  thank  God  it  is  not  so  j  our  Lord's  com- 
mission has  neither  exception  nor  flaw.  It  is  the 
fiat  of  Him,  who  has  said,  "  Heaven  and  earth  shall 
pass  away,  but  my  word  shall  not  pass  away."  And 
by  it  He  has  committed  all  spiritual  power  for  the 
good  of  His  Church  to  those  alone,  to  whom  He 
said,    "  All  power  is  given   unto  me   in   heaven 

AND  IN  EARTH.  Go  YE,  THEREFORE,  AND  TEACH  ALL 
NATIONS,  BABTIZING  THEM  IN  THE  NAME  OF  THE  FA- 
THER, AND  OF  THE  SoN,  AND  OF  THE  HoLY  GhOST  ', 
TEACHING  THEM  TO  OBSERVE  ALL  THINGS  WHATSOEVER  I 
HAVE  COMMANDED  YOU.  AnD  LO,  I  AM  WITH  YOU  AL- 
WAY,  EVEN  UNTO  THE  END  OF  THE  WORLD.       AmEN." 


NOTES. 


Note  (A),  page  18. 

"  But  now,  though  the  Baptism  of  heretics  and 
schismatics,  and  degraded  or  excommunicated 
clerks  was  reputed  valid,  so  as  it  needed  not  to  be 
repeated,  yet  it  was  not  esteemed  so  perfect  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  as  the  regular  and  authorized 
Baptism  of  the  Church,  because  both  on  the  part 
of  the  receiver,  and  on  the  part  of  the  giver,  there 
were  some  deficiencies  in  it."  *  *  * 

"  St.  Austin,  who  has  considered  this  matter 
most  exactly,  often  inculcates  a  known  distinction 
between  the  external  or  visible  Sacrament,  and  the 
invisible  or  spiritual  grace,  the  former  of  which  is 
common  both  to  good  and  bad  men  in  the  Church  ; 
but  the  latter  is  peculiar  only  to  those  that  are 
good.  Now  he  supposes  such  as  are  baptized  by 
heretics  and  schismatics,  to  be  much  in  the  same 
state  as  bad  men  in  the  Church."  *  *  *g 

"Nor  was  this  the  singular  opinion  of  St.  Aus- 
tin about  the  deficiency  of  heretical  Baptism,  but 
the  general  sense  of  the  Church ;  for  which  reason 
they  appointed  that  imposition  of  hands  should  be 


188  NOTES. 

given  to  such  as  returned  to  the  Church,  in  order 
to  obtain  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost  for  them  by 
prayer,  which  they  wanted  before,  as  having  re- 
ceived Baptism  from  those,  who  had  no  power  to 
give  the  Holy  Ghost." — Bingham^  Schol.  Hist.  1.21. 
It  may  be  well  to  observe  that  the  argument  in 
the  text  loses  nothing  of  its  force,  if  the  "  imposi- 
tion of  hands"  given  to  repentant  heretics  and 
schismatics  be  distinguished  from  the  "  laying  on 
of  hands"  in  the  Apostolic  rite  of  Confirmation. 

Note  (B),  p.  27. 

I  cannot  forbear  inserting  here  the  following 
passage  from  Mr.  Bingham  (Antiquities,  Book  II. 
c.  19,  §  15),  as  illustrating  and  confirming  my  posi- 
tion in  regard  to  the  Priestly  character  of  Deacons. 
*'If  it  here  be  inquired,  as  it  is  very  natural  to  ask 
the  question,  why  Optatus  gives  all  the  three  orders 
of  Bishops,  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  the  title  of 
Priesthood,  the  answer  is  plain  and  obvious.  Be- 
cause, according  to  him,  every  order  had  its  share, 
though  in  different  degrees,  in  the  Christian  Priest- 
hood ;  which  is  not,  as  some  imagine,  a  power  to 
offer  Christ's  body  and  blood  really  upon  the  altar, 
as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  quick  and  dead 
(which  is  such  a  notion  of  the  Christian  Priesthood 
as  no  ancient  author  or  ritual  ever  mentions)  :  but 
it  consists  in  a  power  and  authority  to  minister 
publicly,  according  to  God's  appointment,  in  holy 


NOTES.  189 

things,  or  things  pertaining  to  God.  And  there 
are  several  parts  of  this  power,  according  to  the 
different  participation  :•(  which,  in  the  opinion  of 
Optatus,  Bishops,  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  had 
each  their  respective  share  in  the  Priesthood. — 
Thus  it  was  one  act  of  the  Priest's  office  to  offer 
up  the  sacrifice  of  the  people's  prayers,  praises  and 
thanksgivings  to  God,  as  their  mouth  and  orator, 
and  to  make  inter*  ession  to  God  for  them.  An- 
other part  of  the  office  was  in  God's  name  to  bless 
the  people,  particularly  by  admitting  them  to  the  hen- 
ejit  and  privilege  of  remission  of  sins  by  spiritual  re- 
generation  or  baptism.  And  thus  far  Deacons  were 
anciently  allowed  to  minister  in  holy  things,  as 
mediators  between  God  and  the  people  j  upon 
which  account  a  late  learned  writer  {Dr,  Hidxs 
Discourse  of  the  Christian  Priesthood^  c.  11.  §  5)  joins 
entirely  with  Optatus,  in  declaring  Deacons  to  be 
sharers  in  this  lowest  degree  of  the  Christian  Priest- 
hood."— He  then  proceeds  to  show  how  the  Pres- 
byters possessed  a  higher  degree  of  Priestly  power 
than  the  Deacons,  and  Bishops  still  higher  than 
these,  and  in  the  concluding  sentence  of  the  sec- 
tion he  adopts  the  foregoing  view  as  his  own,  in 
these  words  :  "  This  may  serve  at  once  to  caution 
the  reader  against  that  subtle  distinction  of  the 
Romanists  (respecting  the  Prelatical  and  Sacerdo- 
tal office  in  a  Bishop),  and  give  him  a  short  account 
both  of  the  nature  and  different  degrees  of  the  Christian 


190  NOTES. 

Priesthood.''^  This  admission  is  worthy  of  notice, 
because  (in  his  Scholastical  History  of  Lay-Bap- 
tism, c.  I.  §  15),  when  it  serves  his  turn,  he  contra- 
dicts himself,  and  crosses  Antiquity,  by  saying  that 
Deacons  "  are  no  Priests  !" 

Note  (C),  p.  29. 

The  argument  against  Lay-Baptism  derived  from 
its /ec?er«/ character,  is  so  conclusive  that  we  deem 
it  worth  while  to  support  by  some  show  of  proof, 
what  it  might  be  supposed  no  one  would  deny,  had 
n:t  at  leas  one  illustrious  Churchman  questioned 
it.  "The  celebrated  Dr.  Sherlock,"  says  Water- 
land,  "  thought  the  argument  drawn  from  the  na- 
ture of  a  covenant  to  be  so  strong  and  forcible 
against  the  validity  of  Lay-Baptism,  that  he  could 
find  no  surer  way  of  evading  it,  than  by  denying 
Baptism  to  be  a  formal  covenant,  in  which  I  pre- 
sume that  great  man  was  pretty  singular,  and  only 
showed  that  he  was  hard  pressed."  Waterland 
(vol.  X.  p.  31T)  says,  "That  Baptism  is  a  federal 
rite,  a  formal  stipulation  between  God  and  the 
party  baptized,  might  be  probably  argued  many 
ways.  But  for  brevity  sake,  I  shall  confine  myself 
to  the  consideration  of  one  express  text ;  which  I 
render  thus:  '  The  like  figure  whereunto  Baptism 
doth  now  save  us  ;  not  the  putting  away  the  filth  of 
the  flesh,  but  the  stipulation  \_l7tEQ(arrif.ia\  of  a  good 
conscience  to   Godward,  by  the  resurrection   of 


NOTES.  191 

Christ.'*  Here  we  have  the  very  doctrine  which 
I  am  pleading  for,  that  Baptism  is  a  federal  rite, 
a  stipulation  with  God.  So  Beza  and  Grotius, 
and  other  critics  of  best  note,  interpret  the 
place,  and  give  very  substantial  reasons  for  it, 
w^hich  I  need  not  here  recite.  I  shall  only  add, 
that  the  ancientsf  constantly  taught,  that  Baptism 
was  a  covenanting  rite,  a  solemn  form  of  stipula- 
ting with  God,  the  seal  of  the  Lord,  and  that  it  suc- 
ceeded in  the  room  of  circumcision,  being  there- 
fore called  the  Christian  circumcision, '  made  with- 
out hands,'  or  the  spiritual  circumcision,  as  a  figure 
and  instrument  of  it." — It  were  easy  to  multiply 
authorities  indefinitely  to  the  same  effect. 

Note  (D),  p.  39, 

"  Dandi  quidem  jus  habet  summus  Sacerdos, 
qui  est  Episcopus ;  dehinc  Presbyteri  et  Diaconi, 
non  tamen  sine  Episcopi  auctoritate,  propter  Eccle- 
sise  honorem,  quo  salvo  pax  est.  Alioquin  etiam 
laicis  jus  §st  j  quod  enim  ex  aequo  accipitur,  ex  sequo 
dari  potest ;  nisi  Episcopi  jam  aut  Presbyteri  aut 
Diaconi  vocantur,  dicentes,  Domini  sermo  non  de- 
bet abscondi  ab  ullo.  Proinde  et  baptismus  seque 
Dei  census  ab  omnibus  exerceri  potest ;  sed  quanto 
magis  laicis  disciplina  verecundise  et  modestise  in- 

*    1  Peter  3:  21. 

t  See  Dr.  W.'s  references;  and  compare  Bingham,  XI. 
],  6. 


192  NOTES. 

cumbit,  cum  ea  majoribus  competat,  n-^  slbi  assu- 
mant  dicatum  Episcopis  officiiim  Episcopatus  1 
JEmulatio  schismatum  mater  est.  '  Omnia  licere,' 
dixit  sanctissimus  Apostolus,  '  sed  non  omnia  ex- 
pedire.'  Sufficiat  scilicet,  in  necessitatibus  ut  uta- 
ris  ;  sicubi  aut  loci,  aut  temporis,  aut  personse  con- 
ditio compellit.  Tunc  enim  constantia  succurren- 
tis  excipitur,  cum  urget  circumstantia  periclitantis. 
Quoniam  reus  erit  perditi  hominis,  si  supersederit 
prssstare  quod  libere  potest." — TertulL  de  Bapt.  c. 
17. 

I  have  given  in  the  text  Bingham's  version  of 
this  passage,  as  not  likely  to  be  partial  to  Lay-Bap- 
tism, inasmuch  as  some  difference  of  opinion  exists 
in  regard  to  two  or  three  phrases.  This  difference 
does  not,  however,  affect  its  general  scope.  Bing- 
ham passes  over  in  silence  the  only  obscure  pas- 
sage in  it,  "  nisi  Episcopi  jam abscondi  ab  ullo." 

Bishop  Kaye  ("  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  2d 
and  3d  centuries  illustrated  out  of  TertuUian,"  p. 
44^7),  adopts  the  reading  "  vocantur  Discentes" 
(putting  a  period  after  Discentes)^  and  thus  inter- 
prets the  latter  part  of  the  passage  and  comments 
upon  the  whole  :  "  Otherwise  the  Laity  possess  the 
right :  for  that  which  all  equally  receive,  all  may 
equally  confer  :  unless  Bishops,  or  Priests,  or  Dea- 
cons, were  alone  designated  by  the  word  Dis- 
centes^ i.  e.  Disciples.  The  word  of  God  ought  not 
to  be  concealed  by  any  ;  Baptism,  therefore,  which 


NOTES.  193 

equally  (with  the  word)  proceeds  from  God,  may- 
be administered  by  all.'  Our  author  then  goes  on 
to  say  that,  although  the  Laity  possess  the  right, 
yet  as  modesty  and  humility  are  peculiarly  becom- 
ing in  them,  they  ought  only  to  exercise  it  in  cases 
of  necessity,  when  the  eternal  salvation  of  a  fellow- 
creature  is  at  stake.  He  does  not,  however,  ex- 
tend the  right  to  women  j  on  the  contrary  he  stig- 
matizes the  attempt  on  their  part  to  baptize,  as  a 
most  flagrant  act  of  presumption.  In  the  passage 
just  cited,  Tertullian  rests  the  right  of  the  Laity  to 
administer  Baptism  on  the  assumption,  that  a  man 
has  the  power  of  conferring  upon  another  whatever 
he  has  himself  received,  and  on  the  comprehensive 
meaning  of  the  word  Disciples  in  John  iv.  2.  On 
other  occasions,  as  we  have  seen,  he  rests  it  on  the 
ground  that  all  Christians  are  in  fact  Priests.  It  is 
not  easy  to  determine  which  of  the  three  arguments 
is  the  least  conclusive." 

Note  (E),  p.  42. 

We  give  the  original  with  Bishop  Kaye's  com- 
ment on  a  phrase  of  doubtful  meaning.  "  Vani  eri- 
mus,  si  putaverimus,  quod  Sacerdotibus  non  liceat, 
Laicis  licere.  Nonne  et  Laici  Sacerdotes  sum  us  1 
Scriptum  est,  Regnum  quoque  et  Sacerdotes  Deo  et 
Patri  suo  fecit.  Differentiam  inter  Ordinem  et 
Plebem  Constituit  Ecclesite  autoritas,  et  honor  per 
Ordinis  consessum  sanctificatus. — (There  is  an  am- 
17 


194  NOTES. 

biguity  in  the  latter  clause  of  this  sentence,  which 
must  be  differently  translated,  according  as  honor 
is  referred  to  Ecdesice^  or  to  Differentiam  inter  Or' 
dinem  et  Plebem.  I  have  adopted  the  former  sense, 
though  by  no  means  certain  of  its  correctness.  I 
conceive  the  allusion  to  be  to  the  higher  seats  of 
the  Clergy,  apart  from  the  Laity,  in  the  places  of 
religious  assembly.  In  the  tract  de  Fuga  in  Per- 
secutione,  c.  11,  Tertullian  makes  a  distinction  be- 
tween Christians  majoris  et  minoris  loci ;  apparently 
meaning  the  Clergy  by  the  former,  and  the  Laity 
by  the  latter.  So  in  the  tract  de  Baptismo,  c.  17, 
Sed  quanto  magis  Laicis  disciplina  verecundise  et 
modestise  incumbit,  quum  ea  majoribus  competat.) 
— ^Adeo  ubiEcclesiastici  Ordinis  non  est  consessus, 
et  offers,  et  tinguis,  et  Sacerdos  es  tibi  solus.  Sed 
ubi  tres,  Ecclesia  est,  licet  laici  j  unusquisque  enim 
sua  fide  vivit^  nee  est  personarum  acceptio  apud  Deum. 
Quoniam  non  auditores  legis  justificabuntur  a  Deo, 
sed  factores,  secundum  quod  et  Apostolus  dicit. 
Igitur  si  babes  jus  Sacerdotis  in  temetipso,  ubi  ne- 
cesse  est,  oportet  etiam  disciplinam  Sacerdotis,  ubi 
necesse  sit  habere  jus  Sacerdotis.  Digamus  tin- 
guis 1  Digamus  offers  1  Quanto  magis  Laico  di- 
gamo  capitale  est  agere  pro  Sacerdote,  quum  ipsi 
Sacerdoti  digamo  facto  auferatur  agere  Sacerdo- 
tem  1  Sed  necessitati,  inquis,  indulgetur.  Nulla 
necessitas  excusatur,  quae  potest  non  esse.  Noli 
denique  digamus  deprehendi,  et  non  committis  in 


NOTES.  195 

necessitatem  administrandi  quod  non  licet  digamo. 
Omnes  nos  Deus  ita  vult  dispositos  esse,  ut  ubique 
Sacramentis  ejus  obeundis  apti  simus." — De  Exhort, 
ad  Cast.  c.  7. 

Note  (F),  p.  47. 

"  Peregre  navigantes,  aut  si  Ecclesia  in  proximo 
non  fuerit,  posse  fidelem  (qui  lavacrum  suum  in- 
tegrum habet,  nee  sit  bigamus),baptizare  in  neces- 
sitate infirmitatis  positum  catechumenum,  ita  ut, 
si  supervixerit,  ad  Episcopum  eum  perducat,  ut  per 
manus  impos  tionem  perfici  posset." — Condi.  Illi- 
berit.  can,  xxxviii. 

Note  (G),  p.  53. 

Quamobrem,  oro  te,  aut  Sacrificandi  ei  licentiam 
tribuas,  cujus  Baptisma  probas,  aut  reprobes  ejus 
Baptisma,  quern  non  existimas  Sacerdotem." — 
Dial.  adv.  Lucifer.  I.  c.  2. 

"Arianus  baptizat,  ergo  Episcopus  est:  non  bap- 
tizat;  tu  refuta  laicura,  et  ego  non  recipio  Sacer- 
dotem."— Ibid.  c.  5. 

"  Tu  eum  Episcopum  probas,  quia  ab  eo  recipis 
baptizatum — Christianus  non  est,  si  non  habuerit 
Sacerdotem,  qui  eum  faceret  Christianum." — Ibid. 

Note  (H),  p.  54. 

"  Sine  Chrismate  et  jussione  Episcopi  neque 
Presbyter,  neque  Diaconus,  jus  habent  baptizandi. 


196  NOTES. 

Quod  frequenter  (si  tamen  necessitas  cogit),  sci- 
mus  etiam  licere  laicis.  Ut  enim  accipit  quis,  ita  et 
dara  potest. ^^ — Ibid.  c.  4. 

Note  (I),  p.  58. 

"  Quanquam  etsi  laicus  aliquis  pereunti  dederit 
(Baptisma),  necessitate  compulsusj  quod,  cum  ipse 
acciperet,  quomodo  dandum  esset,  addidicit  ;  nes- 
cio  an  pie  quisquam  dixerit  esse  repetendum. 
Nulla  enim  necessitate  si  fiat,  alieni  muneris  usur- 
patio  est :  si  autem  necessitas  urgeat,  aut  nullum, 
aut  veniale  delictum  est." — jiug.  Cont.  Epis.  Par- 
men.  L.  II.  c.  13. 

Note  (K),  p.  61. 
"In  necessitate,  cum  Episcopi,  aut  Presbyteri, 
ant  quilibet  ministrorum  non  inveniuntur,  et  urget 
periculum  ejus  qui  petit,  ne  sine  isto  Sacramento 
hanc  vitam  finiat,  etiam  laicos  solere  dare  Sacra- 
mentum,  quod  acceperunt,  solemus  audire." — Aug. 
ap.  Gratian.  de  Consecrat.  Dist.  IV.  c.  21. 

Note  (L),  p.  61. 
"  Sanctum  est  Baptisma  per  seipsum,  quod  da- 
tum est  in  nomine  Patris,  et  Filii,  et  Spiritus  Sancti : 
ita  ut  in  eodem  sacramento  sit  etiam  auctoritas  tra- 
ditionis  per  Dominum  nostrum  ad  Apostolos  ;  per 
illos  autem  ad  Episcopos,  et  alios  Sacerdotes,  vel 
etiam  laicos  Christianos  ab  eadem  origine  et  stirpe 
venientes." — Ibid.  c.  36. 


NOTES.  197 

Note  (M),  p.  65. 

The  following  are  the  original  words  of  Euse- 
bius,  according  to  Heinichen's  edition.  'J2i  ys 
acpoQfiT]  Tov  TiKTTEmcct  yiyovEV  6  craTuvag,  (fonridag  ug 
ccinov  Hal  otni^crag  iv  avxw  %q6vov  laavov.  'Og  ^orjd-ov- 
(X£Vog  vno  twv  inogaiaTaiv,  voao)  negmsaoiv  %uXs7tT],  ^ul 
ccTio&aveia&ai  ocrov  ovdsTtca  voixi^ofxivog,  iv  ainfj  tJj  kXlvj] 
jj  sxsno,  Tisgi;^v&elg,  sla^sv  (scil.  to  ^ounidfict). 

"And  indeed  Satan  was  the  author  of  his  faith" 
(i.  e.  Satan  caused  him  to  profess  himself  a  Chris- 
tian), "  having  entered  into  him,  and  dwelt  in  him 
a  long  time.  Who,  being  aided  by  the  exorcists, 
when  he  had  fallen  into  a  grievous  illness,  and  was 
thought  to  be  at  the  point  of  death,  received  Bap- 
tism in  the  very  bed  on  which  he  lay,  having  water 
poured  upon  him." 

The  writer  here  seems  to  connect  the  ministry 
of  the  exorcists  in  this  case,  agreeably  to  the  na- 
ture of  their  office  (vid.  Bingham's  Antiquities,  B. 
III.  c.  4),  with  Novatian's  dsemoniacal  possession, 
rather  than  with  the  Baptism.  And  such  appears 
to  be  Mr.  Bennett's  interpretation,  in  the  following 
passage,  which  met  my  eye  after  my  own  judgment 
of  the  case  had  been  formed  and  put  on  record. 
"  'Tis  said  that  Novatian  was  baptized  by  an  Exor- 
cist, who  was  but  a  layman.  To  which  I  reply, 
that  the  Exorcists,  as  such,  w^ere  indeed  only  lay- 
men.    For  though  they  are  sometimes  called  clergy 

in  a  large  sense  of  the  word,  yet  they  were  not  Ec- 
17* 


198  NOTES. 

clesiastical  officers  instituted  by  God's  order,  and  for 
that  reason  I  have  already  shown  and  allowed  them  to 
be  laymen.  Nor  shall  I  inquire  whether  Presbyters 
and  Deacons  were  not  sometimes  Exorcists  also. 
Though  what  Eusebius  reports  of  Romanus,  who 
suffered  martyrdom  under  Diocletian,  fairly  proves 
it  as  to  the  order  of  Deacons  ;  and  I  think  myself 
obliged  to  observe,  that  if  this  were  the  case  in  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century,  then  this  history 
can  do  our  adversaries  no  service.  Because,  though 
Novatian  were  never  so  certainly  baptized  by  an 
Exorcist,  yet  that  Exorcist  might  very  probably 
be  a  clergyman.  But  what  I  insist  upon  is  this, 
viz.  that  the  history  is  manifestly  mistaken.  For 
Cornelius  (in  that  Epistle,  part  of  which  is  pre- 
served by  Eusebius)  does  not  say  that  he  was 
baptized  by  the  Exorcist,  but  that  when  he  had 
been  cured  by  the  Exorcists,  he  fell  into  a  grievous 
distemper  which  threatened  him  with  death  j  and 
that  then  he  was  baptized  in  his  bed.  So  that  some 
time  might  pass  between  his  cure  wrought  by  the 
Exorcist,  and  his  falling  into  that  dangerous  sick- 
ness. However,  a  clergyman  might  baptize  him, 
and  in  my  opinion  he  was  certainly  baptized  by  a 
clergyman.  For  'twas  no  case  of  necessity,  and 
Cornelius,  who  observes  such  minute  particulars  in 
that  very  Epistle,  could  not  but  have  objected  his 
Lay -Baptism,  which  was  notoriously  a  violation  of 
the  then  discipline,  if  there  had  been  any  ground 


NOTES.  199 

for  such  an  objection." — Rights  of  the  Clergy^  c.  24, 

p.  319. 

Note  (N),  p.  QQ. 

"  In  historia  isthac  concinnanda  temporisque  ra- 
tione  digerenda  credulum  admodum  fuisse  Rufli- 
num  constat,  in  fabulas  et  incertos  plebeculae  ru- 
mores  nimis  propensum,  quos  e  triviis  et  tons- 
trina  petitos  literis  mandare  temere  solebat." — 
Hist.  Litter,  vol.  I.  p.  218    .quoted  by  Waterland). 

Note  (0),  p.  67. 
Neque  Petrus  Diaconos  habuit  aut  diem  quae- 
sivit,  quando  Cornelium  cum  omni  domo  ejus  bap- 
tizavit  ;  nee  ipse,  sed  jussit  fratribus,  qui  cum  illo 
ierant  ad  Cornelium  ab  Joppe.  Adhuc  enim  prae- 
ter  septem  Diaconos  nullus  fuerat  ordinatus.  Ut 
ergo  cresceret  plebs  et  multiplicaretur,  omnibus 
inter  initia  concessum  est  et  evangelizare,  et  bapti- 
zare,  et  Scripturas  in  Ecclesia  explanare.  At  ubi 
autem  omnia  loca  circumplexa  est  Ecclesia,  Con- 
venticula  Constituta  sunt,  et  rectores  et  caetera 
ofRcia  in  ecclesiis  sunt  ordinata,  ut  nullus  de  clero 
auderet,  qui  ordinatus  non  esset,  praesumere  offi- 
cium,  quod  sciret  non  sibi  creditum  vel  concessum, 
et  coepit  alio'ordine  et  providentia  gubernari  Ec- 
clesia, quia  si  omnes  eadem  possent,  irrationabile 
esset,  et  vulgaris  res  vilissima  videretur.  Hinc  est 
unde  nunc  neque  Diaconi  in  populo  predicant,  ne- 
que clerici  vel  laici  baptizant." — Pseud.  Amhros, 
in  Gal.  IV. 


200  NOTES. 

It  is  obvious  that  this  writer  first  assumes  that, 
at  the  time  of  St.  Peter's  visit  to  Joppa,  none  had 
been  ordained  but  "  the  seven  Deacons,"  and  that 
the  companions  of  the  Apostle  were  lay  *'  breth- 
ren;"  and  that  he  then  infers  from  the  foregoing 
gratuitous  assumption  his  loose  notion  of  the  pro- 
miscuous right  of  all  Christians  in  the  beginning  to 
minister  in  holy  things.  He  seems  to  have  trans- 
ferred the  crude  conceit  of  certain  "  philosophers," 
about  a  "  state  of  nature,"  from  that  society,  which 
they  claim  to  be  man's  handiwork,  to  that  Divine 
Economy,  which  God  incarnate  has  ordained,  on 
principles  akin  to  those  which  rule  in  heaven, 
where  the  ^^  first  law"  is  "  order.'"' 

Note  (P),  p.  86. 

Mr.  Lawrence  enters  into  the  question  of  heret- 
ical and  schismatical  Baptisms.  After  stating  his 
opponent's  case,  who  treated  Lay-Baptisms  as  all 
one  with  the  former  class  of  Baptisms,  he  thus  pro- 
ceeds— "He  blends  and  jumbles  together  the  no- 
tion of  the  nullity  of  unauthorized  Lay-Baptisms 
with  that  of  the  invalidity  of  heretical  Baptisms, 
which  are  things  vastly  different  from  one  another  ; 
the  first  having  no  pretence  to  any  commission  at 
all  given  by  the  Bishops,  and  was  never  discussed 
in  any  General  Council,  because  the  Church  was 
not  pestered  with  such  unaccountable  lay-usurpers 
as  we  are  now,  till  within  these  last  200  years  j  and 


NOTES.  201 

the  other,  viz.  heretical  Baptisms,  being  such  as 
were  administered  by  heretics,  who  had  by  one 
means  or  other  been  Episcopally  ordained  to  minis- 
ter in  holy  things.  It  was  the  dispute  about  the 
validity  of  these  Baptisms  that  exercised  the  Prim- 
itive Church  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
when  St.  Cyprian^  Bishop  of  Carthage,  and  his  col- 
leagues, after  the  example  of  their  predecessors, 
and  in  conformity  to  the  ancient  customs  of  the 
Asiatic  Churches,  and  the  determinations  in  the 
two  numerous  Synods  at  Synnada  and  Iconium^  held 
many  years  before,  and  the  council  of  Carthage  then, 
pronounced  such  heretical  Baptisms  to  be  null  and 
void,  as  being  destitute  of  any  valid  authority,  be- 
ing performed  in  heresy  and  out  of  the  Church. 
For  they  determined  at  Iconium  in  the  council  un- 
der Firmilian,  '  That  all  those  should  be  held  as  un- 
baptized  who  were  baptized  by  such  as  had  once  been 
Bishops  in  the  Catholic  Church,  if  they  were  bap- 
tized by  them  after  they  had  separated  from  the 
Church.^  ^^ — Sacerdotal  Powers^  p.  78. 

Note  (Q  ,  p.  89. 

'Oi  8s  anoQ^ayevTsg,  Xa'lxol  /evof.isvot,  ovts  tov  §an- 
xiQeiv,  OVTS  TOV  x^^Q^tovuv  ei^ov  i^ovalav,  ovxsTt,  dvva~ 
fxEvoi  x^Q^v  HvsvficiTog  "Ayiov  sTsgoig  nagaxsiv,  rjg  avTol 
exTisTtTOJxacn.  /Jco  a)g  naQO^  Xaiauv  ^ami^ofisvovg  Tovg 
nag  avToov  ixsXsvcrav  eg/ofxevovg  inl  ttjv  ixaXrialav  tw 
ccXtj-d-LVCi)  ^uTiTlafiaTi,  Tw  irjg  ixnXrjalug,  avaxu&aigecr&ai. 
Basil.  Ep.  I.  ad  Amphiloch,  Cap.  I. 


202  NOTES. 

I  subjoin  Mr.  Lawrence's  comments  on  this  pas- 
sage :  "  St.  Basil  thus  argues  :  '  Those  whom  a  Laick 
baptizeth^  are  to  be  re-baptized  ;  but  those  whom  a  He- 
retick  or  Schismatick  baptizeth^  a  Laick  baptizeth  ; 
therefore  such  are  to  be  re-baptized.^  This  argument 
he  made  use  of,  to  prove  that  heretical  and  schis- 
matical  Baptisms  were  null  and  void  ;  and  he  reck- 
oned them  so,  because  he  thought  them  of  the  same 
nature  as  Lay-Baptisms  in  those  days.  His  major 
proposition,  that  '  Those  whom  a  Laick  baptizeth,  are 
to  be  re-baptized,''  was  not  denied  ;  he  had  no  oppo- 
sers  to  defend  such  Baptisms.  All  the  opposition 
he  met  with  was,  that  they  denied  his  Minor,  *  That 
those  whom  a  Heretick  or  Schismatick  baptizeth  a  Laick 
baptizeth  ;'  they  would  not  allow  that  the  Hereticks 
and  Schismaticks  in  those  days,  were  mere  Laicks  ; 
for  in  fact,  they  had  been  admitted  into  the  Minis- 
try by  Episcopal  Ordination  j  and  the  Nicene  Coun- 
cil had  condemned  the  notion  of  such  Hereticks 
and  Schismaticks  being  mere  laymen  :  and  there- 
fore, though  they  did  not  deny,  but  Lay-Baptism 
was  null  and  void,  yet  they  affirmed  heretical  and 
schismatical  Baptisms  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity 
to  be  good,  because  they  were  not  Lay-Baptisms ; 
and  to  this  St.  Basil  consented." — Sacerdotal  Pow- 
ers^ p.  119. 

Note  (R),  p.  98. 

"But  further,  what  our  Author  drives  at  by  ask- 
ing, '■has  not  every  Christian,  in  cases  of  necessity,  a 


NOTES.  203 

right  to  teach^  &c.,  and  consequently  to  baptize  1'  is 
not  to  be  granted  j  for,  whatever  right  the  layman 
has  to  teach,  he  did  not  come  to  that  right  by  vir- 
tue of  this  Commission,  because  this  Commission 
was  never  given  him ;  and  for  his  not  having  re- 
ceived it,  he  is  distinguished  from  the  Clergy  by 
this  term  of  a  layman.  Besides,  what  our  Author 
calls  a  case  of  necessity,  gives  the  layman  no  more 
right  or  authority  to  teach  or  preach  than  he  had 
before.  *  *  *  He  cannot,  in  cases  of  necessity,  in  the 
absence  and  destitution  of  God's  authorized  preach- 
ers, set  himself  up  as  one  of  them,  and  affirm  with 
any  truth,  that  he  is  an  Ambassador  for  Christy  a 
Steward  of  the  mysteries  of  God,  for  he  was  never 
vested  with  any  such  powers ;  he  cannot  tell  his 
auditors  (but  with  a  lie)  that  if  they  despise  him, 
they  despise  Christ, — that  God  has  given  to  him  (this 
layman)  the  Ministry  of  reconciliation.  *  *  *  And  if 
he  cannot  preach  these  for  truths  respecting  his 
office,  because  he  has  no  spiritual  office  at  all  j  then 
'tis  plain,  that  his  charitable  instructing  of  his  ig- 
norant neighbors  is  not  by  virtue  of  the  Commis- 
sion, which  Christ  gave  his  Apostles  and  their  suc- 
cessors ;  and  consequently  so  neither  can  his  Bap- 
tizing be  by  virtue  of  this  Commission  ;  and  there- 
fore his  Baptism  is  no  instituted  Baptism  ;  because 
not  that  Baptism  which  Christ  has  promised  to  con- 
cur with.^^— Sacerdotal  Powers,  p.  94. 


204  NOTES. 

Note  (S)  p.  153. 
The  following  authoritative  statement  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  sets  forth  the  absolute  necessity 
of  Baptism  in  the  most  express  and  fearful  terms  : 
"  Sed  cum  cseterarum  rerum  cognitio  quae  hactenus 
expositse  sunt,  fidelibus  utilissima  habenda  sit :  tunc 
vero  nihil  magis  necessarium  videri  potest,  quam 
ut  doceantur,  omnibus  horainibus  Baptismi  legem 
a  Domino  prsescriptam  esse,  ita  ut^  nisi  per  Baptis- 
mi gratiam  Deo  renascuntui\  in  sempiternam  miseriam 
et  interitum  a  parentious,  sive  illi  fideles  sive  inii- 
deles  s'mt, procreantur.^'' — "  But  as  the  knowledge  of 
the  other  things,  which  have  been  thus  far  set  forth, 
ought  to  be  accounted  most  useful  to  the  faithful ; 
60  indeed  nothing  can  appear  more  necessary  than 
that  they  be  taught,  that  the  law  of  Baptism  has 
been  enjoined  by  our  Lord  upon  all  men  in  such 
wise,  that  children  are  begotten  by  their  parents, 
whether  believers  or  unbelievers,  to  eternal  misery 
and  perdition,  unless  they  are  horn  again  to  God  by 
the  grace  of  Baptism.'''' — Catechism  of  the  Council 
of  Trent.  (See  Fallow's  "  Baptismal  Offices  Illus- 
trated," Introd.  p.  31,  where  the  doctrine  of  the 
Catechism  of  Trent  is  contrasted  with  that  of  the 
Anglican  Catechism  subsequent  to  the  Savoy  Con- 
ference.) 

THE    END. 


o~— — ^ 

NEW  WORKS  &  NEW  EDITIONS, 


The  undersigned  have  the  pleasure  of  presenting  to  you  a  copy  of 
their  Catalogue  of  imporiant  Publications  in  the  several  departments 
of  Literature.  They  would  particularly  direct  your  attention  to  that 
admirable  series  of  devotional  works  by  Bishop  Patrick,  Doctor 
Sutton  and  others,  which  have  received  the  unqualified  commend- 
ation of  the  Church.  In  a  letter  received  from  Bishop  Whitting- 
HAM,  he  says,  "  I  had  forgotten  to  express  my  very  great  satisfac- 
tion at  your  commencement  of  a  series  of  devotional  works,  lately  re 
published  in  Oxford  and  London."  Again,  Bishop  Doane  says  of 
this,  "  I  write  to  express  my  thanks  to  you  for  reprints  of  the  Oxford 
books ;  first,  for  reprinting  such  books,  and  secondly,  in  such  a  style. 
I  sincerely  hope  you  may  be  encouraged  to  go  on,  and  give  them  all 
to  us.  You  will  dignify  the  art  of  printing,  and  you  will  do  great 
service  to  the  best  interests  of  the  country."  The  undersigned  also 
beg  to  refer  to  their  beautiful  edition  of  the  Poetical  Works  of 
SouTHEY,  also  to  that  excellent  series  of  "  Tales  for  the  People  and 
their  Children,"  by  Mary  Howitt  and  others,  and  to  that  extensive 
series  of  popular  works  for  general  reading,  uniting  an  interesting 
style  with  soundness  of  Christian  principle,  such  as  the  works 
of  Archbishop  Magee,  Guizot,  John  Angell  James,  Miss 
Sinclair,  Rev.  Kobert  Philip,  Rev.  Augustus  Wm.  Hare, 
Jno.  Pye  Smith,  Frederick  Augustus  Schlegel,  Isaac 
Taylor,  Dr.  W  C.  Taylor,  Rev.  Dr.  Sprague,  &c.  &c. 
They  also  publisli  those  very  popular  Voyages  and  Travels  by 
Rev.  H.  Southgatk,  cf  the  Episcopal  Mission,  and  Fitch  W. 
Taylor,  together  with  the  Memoirs  of  General  Alexander 
Hamilton  by  his  son;  and  will  continue  to  publish  standard  and 
popular  works,  and  trust  to  merit  a  continance  of  public  favour. 

D.  APPLETON  &  Co. 
Emporium  for  Standard  Literature, 
200  Broadway,  New-YoRK. 

^{Cf  D.  A.  &  Co.'s  Catal  )gue  of  English  Books  (methodically 
arranged)  and  Select  Catalogue  of  American  Publications,  wil 
shortly  be  ready  for  delivery. 

o 6 


o o 

I  New  Works  and  New  Editions 


SCHLEGEL'S  PHILOSOPHY  OF  HISTORY, 

The  Philosophy  of  History,  in  a  course  of  Lectures  dalivered  at 
Vienna,  by  Frederick  Von  Schlegel,  translated  from  the  Ger- 
man, with  a  Memoir  of  the  author,  by  J.  B.  Robertson.  Hand- 
somely printed  on  fine  paper.    2  vols.  12mo. 

"A  masterlj'  production — written  in  that  flowing,  elegant  style  bo  character- 
istic of  the  German  school.  In  fact,  diligent  investigation,  accurate  dis- 
cernment, sound  judgment  and  elegant  taste,  will  be  found  employed  in  every 
page.  Our  readers  may  rely  upon  our  word  that  a  perusal  of  these  pages  will 
yield  them  an  ample  harvest  of  pleasure  and  advantage." — Quarterly  Ktview. 


THE   NATURAL   HISTORY  OF  SOCIETY, 

,  r 

IS    THE    BABBAP.OUS    ASTD    CIVILISED    STATE,  ' 

An  E«say  towards  discovering  the  Origin  and  Course  of  Human 
Improvement.  By  W  Cooke  Taylor,  LL  D.,  &c.,  of  Trinity 
College,  Dublin.  Handsomely  printed  on  fine  paper.  2  vols. 
12  mo. 

"  A  most  able  work,  the  design  of  which  is  to  determine  from  an  examination 
of  the  various  forms  in  which  society  has  been  formed,  what  was  the  origin  of 
civilization,  and  under  what  circumstances  those  attributes  of  humanity,  which  in 
one  country  become  the  foundation  of -ocial  happiness,  and  in  another  perverted 
to  the  production  of  general  misery.  For  this  purpose  the  author  has  separately 
examined  the  principal  elements  by  which  society,  under  all  its  aspects,  is  held 
together,  and  traced  each  to  its  source  in  human  nature.  He  has  then  directed 
attention  to  the  development  of  these  principles,  and  pointed  out  the  circum- 
stances by  which  they  were  perfected  on  the  one  hand,  or  corrupted  on  the 
other." 

"  We  perceive  by  the  preface  that  the  work  has  had  throughout,  the  superin- 
tendence ofthe  very  learned  Archbishop  Whatelyi"  — Literary  Gazette. 


PALMER'S  TREATISE  on  the  CHURCH. 

A   TREATISE    O'S   THE    CHURCH   OF   CHRIST, 

Designed  chiefly  for  the  use  of  Students  in  Theology.  By  the 
Rev.  William  Palmer,  M.A.,  of  Worcester  College,  Oxford. 
Edited,  with  Notes,  by  the  Right  Rev.  W.  R.  Whittingham,  D.D., 
Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  diocese  of 
Maryland.    Svols.  8vo.    Handsomely  printed  on  fine  paper. 

o o 


o- 


Published  by  D.  Appleton  8f  Co. 


MEDITATIONS  ON  THE  SACRAMENT. 

Godly  Meditations  upon  the  most  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  By  Christopher  Sutton,  D.D.,  late  Prebend  of  West- 
minster.   1  vol.  royal  16mo.,  elegantly  ornamented. 


SACRA   PRITATA: 

THE 

Private  Meditations,  Devotions  and  Prayers 
Of  the  Right  Rev    T.  Wisoli,  D.D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Soder  and 
Man.    First  complete  edition.    1  vol.  royal  16mo.,  elegantly  or- 
namented. 


A  Discourse  Concerning  Prayer 

And  the  Frequenting  Tlaily  Public  PrKjers.  By  Simon  Patrick, 
D.D.,  sometime  Lord  Bishop  of  Ely.  Edited  by  Francis  E. 
Paget,  MA  ,  Chaplain  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Oxford.  1  vol. 
royal  ICmo.,  elegantly  ornamented. 


THOUGHTS  IN  PAST  YEARS : 

A  beautiful  collection  of  Poetry,  chiefly  Devotional.    By  the  Au- 
thor of  the  Cathedral.    1  vol.  royal  Idmo.  elegantly  printed. 


HEART'S  EASE: 

Or  a  Remedy   against  all    TrouMes. 

WITH   A 

Consolatory  Discourse, 

Particularly  addressed  to  those  who  have  lost  their  friends  and  dear 
relations.  By  Simon  Patrick,  D.D.,  sometime  Lord  Bishop  of 
Ely.    1vol.  royal  16mo.,  elegantly  ornamented. 

0 0 


07"^" ^'"-      '"'-^       -"    "     '    -'     ■-     -^'  '      - 

4  New  Works  and  New  Editions 

THE  FLAG  SHIP : 

Or,  a  Voyage  Round  the  World, 
In  the  United  States  Frigate  Columbia,  attended  by  her  consort,  the 
Sloop  of  War  John  Adam*,  and  bearing  the  broad  pennant  of 
Commodore  George  C.  Read,     By  Fitch  W.  Taylor,  Chaplain  to 
the  Squadron.    2  vols.  12mo.  plates. 

TOUR  THROUGH  TURKEY  and  PERSIA. 

Narrative  of  a  Tour  through  Armenia,  Kurdiatan,  Persia,  and  Meso- 
potamia, with  an  Introduction  and  Occasional  Observations 
upon  the  Condition  of  Mohamniedanism  and  Christianity  in  those 
countriei.  By  the  Rkv.  Horatio  Southgatk,  Missionary  of 
the  American  Episcopal  Church.    2  vols.  12mo.  plates. 

Magee  on  Atonement  and  Sacrifice. 

Discourses  and  Dissertations  on  the  Scriptural  Doctrines  of  Atone- 
ment and  Sacrifice,  and  on  the  Principal  Arguments  advanced, 
aad  the  Mode  of  Reasoning  employed,  by  ihe  Opponents  of  those 
Doctrines,  as  held  by  the  Established  Church.  By  the  late  Most 
Rev.  William  Magee,  D.  D.,  Archbishop  of  Dublin.  2  vols, 
royal  8vo.,  beautifully  printed. 

SCRIPTURE  and  GEOLOGY. 

On  the  Relation  between  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  some  parts 
of  Geological  Science.  By  John  Pyk  Smith,  D.D.,  author  of 
the  Scripture  Testimony  of  the  Messiah,  &c.  &c,    1  vol.  12mo. 


SOUTHEY'S   POETICAL  WORKS. 

The  complete  collected  edition  of  the  Poetical  Works  of  Robert 
SouTHEY,  Esq.,  LL.D  .  edited  by  himgelf.  Pristed  verbatim 
Irom  the  ten  volume  London  edition.  Illustrated  with  a  fine  por- 
trait and  vignette.     1  vol.  royal 8vo. 

"  This  edition  of  the  works  of  Southey  is  a  credit  to  the  press  of  our  country." 
— N.  A.  Review. 


o- 


Q O 

Published  by,D,  Appleton  8f  Co.  5 

GUIZOT^S  HISTORY  of  CIVILIZATION. 

General  History  of  CiviJization  in  Europe,  from  the  Fall  of  the  Ro- 
man Emphe  to  the  French  Revolution.  Translated  from  the 
l?Vench  of  M.  GUIZOT,  Profegsor  of  History  to  la  Faculte  des 
Lettres  of  Paris,  and  Minister  of  Public  Instruction.  2d  Ameri- 
can, from  the  last  London  edition.    1  vol.    12mo. 


THE  LIFE  OF  ALEXANDER  HAMILTON. 

Edited  by  his  son,  John  C.  Hamilton.    2  vols,  rojal  8vo. 

"  We  cordially  recommend  the  perusal  and  diligent  study  of  these  Tolunies,  ex- 
hibiting, as  they  do,  much  valuable  nnatter  relative  to  the  Kevolution,  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  other  ^important  eveuts  in  the  annals 
of  our  country.  "—iVeto-IiirA;  £eview. 


BICEERSTETffS  COMPLETE  WORKS. 

The  Works  ot  the  Rev.  Edward  Bickersteth,  Rector  of  Man- 
ton,  Hertfordshire,  containing  Scripture,  Help,  Treatise  on  Pray- 
er, the  Christian  Hearer,  the  Chief  concerns  of  Man  for  Time  and 
Eternity,  Treatise  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  Christian  Stu- 
dent.    1  vol.  8vo. 


SCOTLAND  and  the  SCOTCH; 

OR,     THE    WESTER  IsT    CIRCUIT. 

By  Catherine  Sinclair,  author  of  Modem    Accomplishments, 
Modern  Society,  (fcc.  &c.    1  vol.  12mo. 

SHETLAND  and  the  SHETLAPERS; 

OR.  THE  NORTHERN  CIRCUIT. 

By  Catherine  Sinclair,  author  of  Scotland  and  the  Scotch,  Ho- 
liday HouBe,  &;c.  &c.    1  vol.  12mo. 

o — o 


0- ^ o 

)  New  Works  and  New  Editions 


TIE  METROPOLITAN  PEPIT; 

Or  Sketches  of  the  most  Popular  Preachers  in  London.  By  the 
author  of  Random  Recollections,  The  Great  Metropolis,  &c.  &c. 
1  vol.  12mo. 


EARE^S  PAROCHIAL  SERMONS. 

Sermons  to  a  Country  Congregation.  By  Augustus  William 
Hare,  A.M.,  late  Fellow  of  New  College  and  Rector  of  Alton 
Barnes.    1  vol.  royal  8vo. 

"  Any  one  who  can  be  pleased  with  delicacy  of  thought  expressed  in  the  most 
simple  language — ani'  one  who  can  feel  the  charm  of  finding  practical  duties  elu- 
cidated aiid  euforced  by  apt  and  varied  illustrations— will  be  delighted  with  this 
volume,  which  presents  us  with  the  workings  of  a  pious  and  highly  gilted  mind. " 
— Quarterly  Review. 


Williams's  Missionary  Enterprises. 

A  Narrative  of  Missionary  Enterprisea  and  Triumphs  in  the  South 
Seas,  with  Remarks  upon  the  Natural  History  of  the  Islands, 
Origin,  Language.Tradition  and  Usages  of  the  Inhabitants.  By 
the  Rev.  John  Williams,  of  the  London  Missionary  Society. 
NumerouB  plates.    1  vol.  large  12mo. 


Missionary's  Farewell. 

By  the  Rbv.  John  Williams,  author  of  Missionary  Enterprises, 
&c.    1  vol.  18mo. 


A  Collection  of  Church  Music.    Edited  by  George  Kingsley, 

author  of  Social  Choir,  &c. 

"  This  collection  is  pronounced  by  the  most  eminent  professors  to  be  superior 
to  any  published  in  the  countrv." 

I 

o— — o 


Published  by  D.  Appleton  8^  Co. 


Physical  Theory  of  Another  Life. 

By  Isaac  Taylor,    autlior  of  Natural  History  of  Enthusiasm. 
Third  edition.    1  vol.  12mo. 


By  Isaac  Taylor,  author  of  Natural  History  of  Enthusiasm,  &c. 
&c.    Second  Edition.    1  vol.  12uao. 


Limitations  of  Enman  Responsibility. 

By  Francis  Wayland,  D.D.    Second  edition.    1  vol.  18mo. 

The  Principles  of  Diagnosis. 

By  Marshall  Hall,  M.D.  F.R.S.,  &c.  Second  edition,  with  many 
improvements,  by  Dr.  John  A.  Swett.    1  vol.  8vo. 

By  J.  K.  Paulding,  Esq.  Illustrated  with  one  hundred  unique 
original  platei  by  Chapman.    Elegantly  bound.    1  vol.  ]2mo. 

WORKS  BY  THE  REV.  SOBERT  PHILIP. 

THE   LIFE  ANt)  OPINIONS  OF  DR.   MILNE, 

MISSIOiTART    TO    CHINA. 

Illustrated  by  Biographical  Annals  of  Asiatic  Missions  from  Primi- 
tive to  Protestant  Times,  intended  as  a  Guide  to  Mifsionary  Spirit. 
By  Robert  Milne.    lvoI.12mo. 

THE  LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  JOHN   BUNYAN, 
Author  of  the  Pilgrim's  Progress.    By  Robert  Philip.  With  a  fine 
port  ait.    1  vjI.  i2mo 

6 ^ o 


o — o 

8  JSlew  Works  and  New  Editions 

THE  LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  WHITEFIELD, 

The  eminent  Preacher.  By  Robert  Philip.  With  a  fine  portrait. 
1  vol.  12mo.  * 

LADY'S    CLOSET    LIBRARY, 

AS  follows: 
THE  MARYS; 
Or  Beautyof  Female  Holiness.  By  Robert  Philip.    1  vol.  18mo. 

THE   MARTHAS; 
Or  Varieties  of  Female  Piety.    By  Robert  Philip.    1  vol.  18mo. 

THE   LYDIAS  ; 
Or  Development  of  Female  Character.    By  Robert  Philip.    1 
vol.  18mo. 

DEVOTIONAL  AND   EXPERIMENTAL  GUIDES. 
By  Robert  Philip.  With  an  Introdaciory  Essay  by  Rev.  Albert 
.  Barnes.    2  vo,b.  12mo.    Containing 

Guide  to  the  Perplexed. 
Do        do  Devotional. 
Do        do  Thoughtful. 
Do        do  Doubting. 
Do        do  Conscientious. 
Do        do  Redemption. 

YOUNG   MAN'S  CLOSET  LIBRARY. 

By  Robert  Philip.  With  an  Introductory  Essay  by  Rev.  Albert 

Barnes.    1  vol.  12mo. 

LOVE  OF  THE  SPIRIT, 
Traced  in  his  Work :    a  Companion  to  the  Experimental  Guides. 

By  Robert  Philip.    1  vol.  18mo. 

THE  MARTYRED  MISSIONARIES. 

Memoirs  of  th«  Rev.  Samuel  Mxtnson  and  the  Rev.  Henry  Ly- 
man, late  Missionaries  to  the  Indian  Archipelago,  vtrith  the  Jour- 
nal of  their  Exploring  Tour.  By  the  Rev.  Wm.  Thompson. 
1  vol.  12mo. 

o 


o ] -o 

Published  by  D.  Appleton  Sf  Co.  ^ 

WORKS   BY   THE   REV.   JOHN   A.   JAMES. 
Pastoral  Addresses: 

By  Rev.  John  Angell  James.  With  an  Introduction  by  the 
Rev.  Wm.   Adams.    1  vol.  18mo. 

THE  YOUNG   MAN   FROM   HOME. 

In  a  series  of  Letters,  especially  directed  for  the  Moral  Advancement 
of  Youth.  By  the  Rkv.  John  Angell  James.  Fifth  edition. 
1  vol.  18mo. 

The  Anxious  Enquirer  after  Salvation 

Directed  and  Encouraged.  By  Ksv.  John  Angell  James.  1  vol. 
18rao. 

The  Christian  Professor.  - 

Addressed  in  a  series  of  Counsels  and  Cautions  to  the  Members  of 
Christian  Churches.  By  Rev.  John  Angell  James.  1  vol. 
18mo. 

WORKS   BY   THE    REV.  OR,   SPRAGUE. 
True  and  False  Religion. 

Lectures  illustrating  the  Contrast  between  True  Christianity  and 
various  other  systems.  By  William  B  Spraque,  D.D.  1  vol. 
I'imo. 

lectures  on  Revivals 

In  Religion.  By  W.  B.  Sprague,  D.D.  With  an  Introductory 
Essay  by  Leonard  Woods,  D.D.    lvol.l2mo. 

Letters  to  a  Daughter, 

On  Practical  Subjects.  By  W.  B.  Sprague,  D.D.  Fourth  edi- 
tion, revised  and  enlarged.    1  vol.  12mo. 

lectures  to  Young  People. 

By  W.B.  Sprague,  D.D.  With  an  Introductory  Address  by  Sam- 
uel Miller,  D.D.    Fourth  edition.    1  vol.  12mo. 

o b 


0-- o 

10  Netb  Works  and  New  Editions 

MY  SON'S   MANUAL. 

Comprising  a  Summary  View  of  the  Studies,  Accomplishments,  and 
rrinciples  of  Conduct,  best  suited  for  Promoting  Respectability 
and  Success  in  Life.  Elegantly  engraved  frontispiece.  1  vol.  18nio. 

MY   DAUGHTER'S   MANUAL. 

Comprising  aSummary  View  of  Female  Studies,  Accomplishments 
and  Principles  of  Conduct.    Beautiful  frontispiece.    1  vol.  18mo. 

Letters    to   the  Young. 

Chiefly  of  a  Devotional  character.  By  Maria.  Jane  Jewsbury. 
1  vol.  12m  0. 


Thoughts  in  Affliction. 

By  the  Rev.  A.  S.  Thelwall  A.M.  To  which  is  added  Bereaved 
Parents  Consoled,  by  John  Thornton,  with  Sacred  Poetry. 
1  vol.  32mo. 

AP  PL  ETON'S    TALES    F.'O  R    THE    PEOPLE 

And  tlieir  Children. 

Under  the  above  title  are  now  bemg  issued  a  series  of  moral  and 
highly  rnteresiing  Tales  by  Mart  HowitT  and  others.  The  fol- 
lowing have  already  appeared. 

WHO  SHALL  BE  GREATEST? 
A  Tale.    By  Mary  Howitt.    1  vol.  18mo.  plates. 
SOWING  AND    REAPING  : 
Or  What  will  come  of  it  ?  By  Mary  Howitt.  1  vol.  18mo.  plates. 

STRIVE  And  thrive. 

A  Tale.    By  Mary  Howitt.    1  vol.  18mo.  plates. 

HOPE  ON.  HOPE  EVER, 

Or  the  Boyhood  of  Felix  Law.  By  Maey  Howitt.  1  vol.  18mo. 
plates. 

GRIFFIN'S  REMAINS. 

Remains  of  the  Rev.  Edmund  D.  GrifRn.  Compiled  by  Francis 
Griffin.    With  a  Memoir  by  Rev.  Dr.  McVicar.    2  vols.  8vo. 

6 O 


Published  by  D.  Appleton  ^  Co.  11 

Lafever's  Modern  Architecture. 

Beauties  of  Modern  Architecture;  consisting  of  Forty  eight  Plates 
of  Original  Designs,  with  Plana,  Elevations  and  Sections,  also  a 
J)ictionaiy  of  Technical  Terms,  the  whole  forming  a  complete 
Manual  for  the  Practical  Business  Mfui.  By  M.  Lafever,  Arclii- 
tect.    1  vol.  large  8vo.  half  bound. 

lafever's  Stair-Case  and  Hand-Rail  Construction. 

The  Modern  Practice  of  Stair-Case  and  Hand-Rail  Construction, 
practically  explained  in  a  series  of  Designs.  By  M.  Lafever, 
Architect.  With  Plans  and  Elevations  for  Ornamental  Villas. 
Fifteen  plates.    1  vol  large  8vo. 

HODGE  ON  THE  STEAM-ENGINE. 

The  Steam  Engine,  its  Origin  and  Gradual  Improvement  from  the 
time  of  Hero  to  the  present  day,  as  adapted  to  Manufaciures,  Lo- 
comotion and  Navigation.  Illustrated  with  forty-eight  plates  in 
full  detail,  numerous  wood  cuts,  &c.  By  Paul  R.  Hodge,  C.  E. 
1  vol.  folio  of  p;ate»  and  letter-press  in  8vo. 

"In  this  work  the  best  Western  and  Eastern  machinery,  as  applied  to  naviga- 
tion, together  with  the  most  approved  locomotive  enginea  in  this  country  and 
Europe,  are  given  in  detail,  forming  the  mo=t  valuable  work  for  the  practical  man 
ever  published." 


Keightly's  Mythology ,  for  Schools. 

The  Mythology  of  Ailcient  Greece  and  Italy,  designed  for  the  use  of 
Schools.  By  Thomas  Keightly.  Numerous  wood  cut  Ulujitra- 
tions.    1  vol.  IBmo.  half  bound. 

HAZEN^S  SYMBOLICAL  SPELLING-BOOK. 

The  Symbolical  Spelling  Book,  in  two  parti.  By  Edward  Ha- 
ZEN.    Contaijiing  288  engravinga,  printed  on  good  paper. 

"  This  work  is  already  introduced  into  upwards   of  one  thousand   different 
schools,  and  pronounced  to  be  one  of  the  best  worka  published. 

CRUDEN'S  CONCORDANCE. 

Containing  all  the  words  to  he  found  in  his  large  work  relating  to 
the  New  Teitament.    1  vol.  18mo. 

THE  POLYMICRIAN  NEW  TESTAMENT, 

Numerous  Preferences,  Maps,  &c.     1  vol.  T8mo. 

o— — o 


o o 

12  New  Works  and  New  Editions 

MILLER  ON  RULING  ELDERS. 

An  Essay  on  the  Warrant,  Nature  and  Duties  of  the  Office  of  the 
Ruling  Eiders  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  By  Samuel  Millkr, 
D.D.     I  vol.  12mo. 

ESTHER; 

A    SCRIPTDBE    NARRATIVE. 

By  a  Lady.  With  an  Original  foem  by  Miss  H.  F.  Gould.  1  vol. 
18mo. 

ELLA    V ; 


Or  the  July  Tour     By  one  of  the  Party.      1  vol.  12mo. 

*'  He  can  form  a  moral  on  a  glass  of  champagne." — Le  Roy. 


DISCOURSES  ON  THE  NERVOUS  SYSTEM. 

Select  Discourse-  on  the  Functions  of  the  Nervous  System,  in  oppo- 
sition to  Phrenology,  Materialism  and  Atheism  ;  to  which  is  pre- 
fixed a  Lecture  un  the  Diversities  of  the  Human  Character,  aris- 
ing from  Physiological  Peculiarities.  By  John  Augustine 
Smith,  M.D.    1  vol.  12mo. 


lEF  Preparing  for  Puhlicaiion. 

THE  PARABLE  OP  THE  PILGRIM. 

By  Simon  Patrick,  D.D.,  sometime  Bishop  of  Ely.  With  an  In- 
troduction and  some  account  of  the  Author,  by  the  Rbv.  Thomas 
Chameerlaine,  M.A.,  of  Christ  Chutch,  Oxford.  1  vol.  royal 
16mo.  elegantly  printed,  uniform  with  Heart's  Ease,  Discourae  oa 
Prayer,  &c. 

LEARN  TO  LIVE. 

Disce  Vivere,  Learn  to  Live;  wherein  is  shown  that  the  Life  of 
Christ  is,  and  ought  to  be,  an  express  Pattern  for  imitation  unto 
the  life  of  a  Christian.  By  Christopher  Sutton,  D  D.,  some- 
time Prebeodof  Westminster.    1  vol.  16mo.  elegantly  primed. 


— — ^ ^ — -o 

Published  by  D.  Appleton  ^*  Co.  13 

LEARN  TO  DIE. 

Disce  Mori,  Learn  to  Die,  a  Religious  Discourse,  moving  every 
Christian  man  to  enter  into  a  serious  remembrance  of  his  end. 
By  Christopher  Sutton,  D  D,,  sometiiut  Prebend  of  West- 
minster.   1  vol.  16mo,  elegantly  printed. 

From  the  last  London  edition.    1  vol.  16mo.  elegantly  printed. 

The  lOOKING-GlASS  for  the  IIND, 

Or  Intellectual  Mirror;  being  an  elegant  Collfection  of  thy  most  de- 
lightful Little  Stories  and  Interesting  Tales,  witli  numerous  illus- 
tratioui.    From  the  twentieth  London  edition.    1  vol.  18mo, 


appiness,   its   Natnre   and  Sources. 

By  Rev.  Johjt  Ahgkll  James, 

THE  WIDOW  DIRECTED 

To  the  Widow's  God.    By  Rev.  John  anqell  James. 


THE  PHILOSOPHICAL  HISTORY  OF  MANKIND, 

From  the  German  of  Herder, 


The  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany.  By  Lkopold  von 

Ranke,  author  of  the  History  of  the  Popes.  Traiisiuted  by  Sa- 
rah AtrSTEN. 

o — ^ — 


o 


Recenily  Published. 
The   Sacred   Choir: 

A  COLLECTION  OF  CHURCH  MUSIC. 

Consisting  of  Selections  from  the  mo«t  disiingui^hed  authors,  among 
whom  are  the  names  of  Haydn,  Mozart,  Beethoven,  Pergo- 
LESsi,  &c.  &c.  ;  with  geveial  pieces  of  Music  by  the  author ; 
also  a  Progressive  Elementary  Sysstem  of  Instruction  for  Pupils. 
By  George  Kingsley,  author  of  the  Social  Choir,  &c.  &c. 
Fourth  edition. 

I13—  'ihe  following  are  among  the  many  favourable  opinions 
expressed,  of  this  woik. 

From  Li.  Meignen,  Profasor  of  Music,  F/iilaUelphia. 

"  G.  Kiagsley, 

"  Sir, — I  hare  carefully  perused  the  copy  of  your  new  work,  and  it  is  with 
the  greatest  pleasure  that  1  now  tell  you  that  1  Lave  been  highly  gratified  with  the 
reading  of  many  of  its  pieces.  The  harmony  througliout  is  full,  effective  and 
correct;  the  melodies  are  well  selected  and  well  adapted;  and  1  have  no  doubt, 
that  when  known  and  appreciated,  this  work  will  be  found  in  the  library  of  every 
choir  whose  director  feels,  as  many  do,  the  want  of  a  complete  reformation  in 
that  department  of  muBic.    Believe  me,  dear  sir, 

"  Yours  respectfulli', 

"  L.  Meignen." 
From  Mr.  B.  Denman,  President  of  the   David  Sacred  Music  Society,  Philadel- 
phia, to  George  Kingsley. 

"  Dear  sir,— HaTing  examined  your  '  Satred  Choir,'  I  feel  much  pleasure  in  re- 
commending it  as  the  very  best  collection  of  Church  Wusic  I  have  ever  seen.  It 
combines  the  beauties  ol  other  books  of  the  kind,  with  some  decided  improve- 
ments in  selection,  arrangement  and  composition,  and  commends  itself  to  the 
cnoir,  the  parlour  and  social  circle.  Wishing  you  tlie  success  your  valuable  and 
well-aranged  work  lierits,  I  am,  sir, 

"  Youra  respectfully." 

From  the  Committee  of  the  Choir  of  Yale  College. 
"  Sir,— VVe  have  been  using  for  some  lime  past  your  new  publication  in  the 
choir  with  which  we  are  connected.  We  take  pleasure  in  statins  to  you  our  en- 
tire satisfaction  with  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  compiled  and  harmonized, 
and  would  willingly  reeomiuend  it  to  any  of  the  association?  desiring  a  collection 
of  Sacred  Music  of  a  sterling  character  and  original  matter.  The  melodies  are 
quite  varied  and  of  an  unusually  pleasing  character  ;  aud  uniliug,  as  they  do,  the 
devotional  with  the  pleasing,  we  have  no  hesitation  iu  giving  thein  our  preference 
to  any  other  cuileclion  of  a  similar  character  at  present  in  use  among  the 
churches. " 

From  Three  Leadert  oj"  Choirs. 
•'  Mr.  George  Kingsley. 

"Sir,— We  have  examined  the  '  Sacred  Choir'  enough  to  lead  us  to  ap- 
preciate the  work  ,is  the  best  publication  of  Sacred  .Music  extant.  It  is  beautifully 
printed  and  substantially  bound,  conferring  credit  on  the  publishers.  We  becpeak 
for  the  '  Sacred  Music  Choir'  an  e.xtensive  circulation. 

Sincerely  yours, 

"  O.  S.  Bowdoin. 
"  E.  O.  Goodwin. 
"  D.   Ingraham." 

6 o 


-o 


EIVIPORJUIVI  FOR  STANDARD   LITERATURE, 

English  and  American. 


D.     APPLETON    80    Co. 

Beg  leave  to  invite  the  attention  of  their  Fiiends  and  the  Public 
generally,  to  their  Choice  and  Unique  Assortment  of  the  moat  im- 
portant W»rks  that  emanate-from  the  English  and  American  Press. 

Their  Establishment  is  distinguished  by  its  large  collection  of 
Standard  Works  in  the  various  departments  of  Thkology,  Civil 
AND  Ecclesiastical  History,  Poetey,  Natural  and  Moral 
Philosophy,  Architecture  and  Engineerikg,  General  Bio- 
QRAPHY,  Voyages  and  Travels,  Fine  Arts,  Classical  and 
General  Literature. 

Among  their  recent  importations  will  be  found  new  and  beauti- 
ful editions  of  the  Works  of  Bacon,  Claiendon,  Burnet,  Jeremy 
Taylor,  Milton,  Barrow,  Hooker,  Ben  Joneon,  Massinger  and  Ford, 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  Shakspeare,  Froissart,  Monstrelet,  Dod- 
dridge, Baxter,  Owt^n,  Strype,  Bloomfield,  Cranmer,  Butler,  Cave, 
Beikeley.  Adams,  Greenhill,  Dotme  South,  Hume  and  Smollett, 
Gibbon,  Robertson,  Lorke,  Lardner,  Leslie,  Hurd,  Porteus,  John 
Scott,  Skelton,  Sherlocke,  Warburton,  Chillingworth,  Leighton, 
Simeon,  Tillotson,  Hail,  Shirley,  Davy,  Henry,  Clarke,  Wrax- 
hall,  Alison,  Mitford,  Byron,  Stackhouse,  Bentley,  Shaaron,  Tur- 
ner, Spencer,  Warton,  Fuller,  Lamb,  H,.zlitt,  Coleridge,  Shelley, 
Bingham,  Grave?,  Beveridge,  Wycherley,  Congreve,  Vanbrugh, 
Farquhar,  and  others,  too  numerous  to  mention,  always  for  sale 
on  favourable  terms. 


AMERICAN   BOOKS. 

Their  Assortment  of  " Modern  American  Publications"  is  now 
very  complete,  comprising  the  most  Valuable  and  Approved 
WORKS  IN  THEOLOGICAL  AND  MISCELLANEOUS 
LITERATURE, 
to  which  additions  are  constantly  being  added. 

School  Books  in  every  yariety. 


Country  Merdiants  supplied,  om  tlie  moet 
fa-*'Owrablo  terms. 


o- 


-6 


-  '        — — - —        •       — — o 

IMPORTATION  OF  EUROPEAN  BOOKS. 

D.  APPLETON  80  Co. 

Beg  to  inform  Literaiy  and  Scientific  Gentlemen,  and  the  Public 
generally,  that  they  have  recently  made  extensive  anangements  for 
the  increase  of  their  business,  through  the  senior  partner  of  their 
firm,  (now  resident  in  England,)  connected  with  the  establishment 
of  a  permanent  London  Agency  for  tlie  purchase  snd  supply  of 
European  Books,  to  be  conducted  by  one  of  their  house,  who  will 
devote  his  personal  attention  to  the  execution  of  all  orders  trans- 
mitted them,  with  the  utmost  promptitude  and  despatch. 

They  are  induced  to  take  this  step  from  a  conviction  of  its  impor- 
tant utility  to  the  literary  interests  of  this  country,  derived  from 
their  long  experience  in  busine-s  ;  and  they  flatter  themselves  that 
this  arrangement  will  place  them  in  the  most  favourable  position 
for  making  purchases  in  the  British  and  Continental  Book  Markets ; 
while  by  restricting  their  business  simply  to  an  Agency  for  the  pur- 
chase of  Books,  they  will  enjoy  all  the  advantages  accorded  by  the 
custom  of  the  London  Trade  v/hen  books  are  bought  for  exportation 
to  a  foreign  country,  but  which  are  rigorously  withheld  from  any 
establishment  engaged  in  the  sale  of  books  on  the  spot. 

It  will  be  their  aim  to  merit  the  patronage  of  the  public  by  fur- 
nishing books  at  the  lowest  possible  price,  and  the  constant  attention 
of  a  member  of  their  Firm,  personally  acquainted  with  the  British 
and  Foreign  Book  Trade,  will  secure  the  speedy  execution  of  all 
orders  entrusted  to  their  care. 

Terms. — Colleges,  Theological  Seminaries,  and  Incorporated  In- 
stitutions generally,  may  have  their  orders  executed,  to  any  amount, 
free  of  duty,  on  a  charge  of  Ten  per  cent.  Commission — the  Goods 
to  be  paid  for  on  tlieir  arrival  at  New-York— wiihcut  any  advance 
of  cash  required. 

From  Ger.tlemen,  and  Private  Individuals,  (when  they  are  not 
known  to  D.  A.  &  Co.)  an  advance  o)  one  half  the  probable  cost  of 
the  order  will  be  required;  the  balance  to  be  settled  un  the  arrival 
of  the  Books  at  New-York.  A  Commission  of  Ten  per  cent,  being 
charged. 

o u 


